Article by Cameron Spink

We regularly hear the statements that all people want is same-sex marriage or abortion and to claim there is a desire to push things any further towards polygamy etc. is just ludicrous. However, their protestations do not hide the fact that this is what is happening.

Let's consider the abortion issue in Canada. It was reported yesterday that a lady who strangled her newborn son has been given a three-year suspended sentence for her crime. That is, she gets to walk out of court a free woman. And you know why? Because Justice Joanne Veit believed that the "onerous demands of pregnancy" should determine such an outcome. Yep, that's right. Here is a clear example of the concepts of legalised abortion undermining other areas. Now this woman is able to claim infanticide and receive a mere blot on her record for killing a fellow human being (after all, even pro-abortionists cannot argue that a newborn is not a human).

What is more, our talented Judge believed that the grief that Canadian's have for the murder of the child is comparable to the grief they have for this woman as she had an unwanted pregnancy. It is true that the law and morality are not the same. In this case they are not even in the same ballpark. Sure there are struggles in life and one that a woman may face (particularly with sexual activity) is pregnancy. And, yes, pregnancy I have no doubt is tough. However, the difficulty of being an only-parent does not allow you the right to extinguish the life that you are responsible for.

"Pro-life advocates have warned for years that widespread acceptance of abortion will open the door to greater societal acceptance of infanticide, beginning with the euthanizing of disabled newborns.  Infanticide proponent Peter Singer, a top ethicist at Princeton University, has said, for example, "there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby."

Though he once was considered to be on the radical fringe, Singer's views are becoming more mainstream.  For example, the world's most prestigious bioethics journal, The Hastings Center Report, published in 2008 an enthusiastic defense of the Netherlands' practice of euthanizing newborns.

"Where will it end: a one month old child whose parent has decided is not worthy of life, a six month old child, a two year old child, a special needs child or how about a teenager?" asked Hughes.

"It is time that Parliament, whose duty it is to protect and legislate regarding the Constitution, examine its duty with regard to the first constitutional right - 'the right to life' and enact legislation which recognizes that life begins at conception and must be protected from that time until natural death," said Mary Ellen Douglas, national organizer of CLC. "The mother's stress cannot equate to the loss of a lifetime for the child.""

http://www.lifesitenews.com/judge-rules-no-jail-time-for-infanticide-because-canada-accepts-abortion.html

Edit: Peter Singer can and does defend a mother's "right" to commit infanticide:

“The liberal search for a morally crucial dividing line between the newborn baby and the fetus has failed to yield any event or stage of development that can bear the weight of separating those with a right to life from those who lack such a right.”

Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2d ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 142