Once again, science has unwittingly provided additional support for the pro-life cause.And it looks like some judges in this country believe that if the fetus is not protected by law, neither should be the newborn. At least that was the justification cited by an Alberta judge that let a woman convicted of strangling her newborn son walk free. So when does life and personhood begin if in the eyes of "justice" Joanne Veit? When, according to the
The National Geographic channel recently broadcast a program called “Science of Babies”, which is available for viewing on their website here. It’s a really well-done program offering fresh insight into the science behind the development of babies in their first year. It’s also very cute, with lots of delectable footage of newborns goofing around. I recommend that you take 45 minutes of your time to watch it.
I’d like to draw your attention to a section less than 5 minutes long. It starts at 5:25 and ends at 8:55. This segment aims to provide a scientific explanation of why newborn babies are so helpless compared to newborn animals in the wild. Personally, I’ve always wondered why humans take 1 year to stumble through their first steps while some animals are literally running around just hours after birth. Their evidence is very persuasive and supports the pro-life view that the moment of human birth is an arbitrary demarcation for abortion legislation because it doesn’t correspond to any particular change in a baby’s development or state of being. They explain that a newborn is still a fetus, which undermines the pro-abortion argument that a fetus and a newborn deserve different protection under the law.
And when is Canada finally going to have impartial common sense judges that are ready to acknowledge the self-evident fact that life begins at conception and that personhood is a right that should not be dependent upon the baby's size, level of development, environment or degree of dependency.