A trend seen by prolife activists that frequently engage college students on campuses nationwide is the growing acceptance of post-birth abortion, or killing the infant after he or she is born, campus prolife outreach leaders tell The College Fix.
Anecdotal evidence by leaders of prolife groups such as Created Equal and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust said in interviews that not only do they see more college students willing to say they support post-birth abortion, but some students even suggest children up to 4 or 5-years-old can also be killed, because they are not yet “self aware.”
“We encounter people who think it is morally acceptable to kill babies after birth on a regular basis at almost every campus we visit,” said Mark Harrington, director of Created Equal. “While this viewpoint is still seen as shocking by most people, it is becoming increasingly popular.”
Why is this a surprise? It’s the familiar “punished with a baby” rationale.
Forget Peter Singer’s pointy-headed arguments for infanticide like “quality of life” and the environment. People in a moral bind will latch on to any theory that rationalizes their stunted thinking. To many, children are a hindrance to their parents’ personal freedom; therefore, killing them is one’s personal choice. The logic runs like this:
- Personal liberty is sacrosanct.
- Children hinder personal liberty.
- Children are expendable.
Here’s pro-life logic: Your time is not your own. Your body is not your own. They belong to God. Worshiping the idol of personal liberty defiles man. Murder also defiles man. Defilement without repentance, without a change of heart, removes one from the protection of God.
We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers... (1 Timothy 1:8-9)
Lest you imagine outlawing abortion will turn the people from their idols, let’s be clear: It won’t. When everyone’s a lawbreaker, the law is moot. Via Rod Dreher:
Most of the girls on Instagram fell into the same category as Jasmine. They had sent a picture to their boyfriend, or to someone they wanted to be their boyfriend, and then he had sent it on to others. For the most part, they were embarrassed but not devastated, Lowe said. They felt betrayed, but few seemed all that surprised that their photos had been passed around. What seemed to mortify them most was having to talk about what they’d done with a “police officer outside their age group.” In some he sensed low self-esteem—for example, the girl who’d sent her naked picture to a boy, unsolicited: “It just showed up! I guess she was hot after him?” A handful of senior girls became indignant during the course of the interview. “This is my life and my body and I can do whatever I want with it,” or, “I don’t see any problem with it. I’m proud of my body,” Lowe remembers them saying. A few, as far as he could tell, had taken pictures especially for the Instagram accounts and had actively tried to get them posted. In the first couple of weeks of the investigation, Lowe’s characterization of the girls on Instagram morphed from “victims” to “I guess I’ll call them victims” to “they just fell into this category where they victimized themselves.”
Protecting the people from each other is one of many functions of the law. Protecting the people from defiling themselves is completely up to them.