The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Napolitano Archive
The Slaughter of Babies
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The recent broadcast of videotapes taken of persons employed at Planned Parenthood — the prolific and notorious abortion provider — has brought the issue of abortion to the national consciousness again and front and center to the Republican presidential primary campaign. The tapes were made secretly by a pro-life group determined to show to the world the dark side of Planned Parenthood’s use of federal funds.

What the world saw was terrifying and damning. The tapes are difficult to watch, just as any discussion of human slaughter is difficult to watch. If you have seen these tapes, you witnessed physicians and others talking about the profits Planned Parenthood is making in the sale of baby body parts, even though such sales are criminal under federal law.

The cavalier demeanor of those who profit from this slaughter is chilling, and the moral punch in the nose to the Democratic Party is excruciating. That’s because Planned Parenthood is virtually a branch of the Democratic Party. It has a lock on the federal treasury to the tune of $500 million per year. It pays for or performs more than 325,000 abortions a year, which is about one-third of all abortions in America. It contributes heavily to the campaigns of Democratic office seekers. You can see the cycle.

Even though federal law has prohibited the use of federal funds for abortions for nearly 18 years, money is fungible. The Planned Parenthood folks may be baby killers, but they are not dumb. They know how to dedicate federal funds for maternal health and free up maternal health funds for the slaughter of babies — and make it all look legal.

The reason these tapes are so upsetting to the Democrats, and to some Republicans as well, is that they have convinced themselves that the fetus in the womb is not a person. Yet, watching their abortionists graphically discuss the monetary value of body parts and the physical manipulation of fully formed babies so as to maximize the harvesting of their organs ironically humanizes the body parts and the babies from which the parts came, and is thus so upsetting to those who deny fetal personhood.

But this is more than upsetting — it seriously challenges the underlying commitment of today’s Democratic Party that the fetus is not a person. This is, of course, the central holding of the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Just as in Dred Scott v. Sandford, wherein the court held in 1857 that African-Americans were not persons, so did Roe v. Wade make that holding for fetuses.

And the stated reason for the holding was the absence of consensus in 1973 among philosophers, physicians, theologians and scientists about when life begins. Yet, the duty of the court is to say what the Constitution means, not to count noses. Roe is the only Supreme Court decision in history grounded on the absence of discernible consensus among the populace.


Is the fetus in the womb a person? Before answering this, consider the depravity to which we have sunk due to its legal non-personhood. The slaughter of babies, some where it is legal in their ninth month of gestation, the sale of their body parts, and the taxpayer financing of this have become so morose that even their staunchest supporters cannot confront these realities publicly for fear of losing political support.

Is the fetus in the womb a person? Before answering this, consider the danger of a Supreme Court possessing the power to declare any human offspring to be a non-person. Two months ago, we witnessed the spectacle of the court finding four plain English words — “established by the States” — to be ambiguous and, 21 pages later, telling us that legally those words do not mean what they say. If the court can change the meaning of ordinary words, can it change the meaning of life?

It has.

Is the fetus in the womb a person? Of course it is. It has two fully human parents and the fully actualizable human genome to achieve post-natal existence. The single-cell zygote in the mother’s womb came from her flesh and cannot be anything but a human person. For 600 years, the law has permitted the fetus in the womb to inherit property. How could that be if the fetus were not a human person? If you kill a pregnant woman and the fetus dies, you can be charged with the murder of two persons. If the reason for government in the first place is to protect rights, the government’s prime obligation is to protect the rights of persons to live.

The Democrats are not alone at fault here. In the first six years of the presidency of George W. Bush, when the Republicans controlled the White House and the Congress, numerous efforts were made to introduce a simple one-line statute: “The fetus in the womb shall be, for all constitutional and legal purposes, a person.” Republican congressional leaders kept all such proposals from being voted upon.

But seeing is believing. The tapes are the abortionists’ nightmare, because in their wanton slaughter they have let slip the utter humanity of their victims. And the souls of the Holy Innocents who have been slaughtered before drawing their first breaths are no doubt praying for the conversion of the hearts and the salvation of the souls of those who killed them.

Copyright 2015 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Abortion 
Hide 22 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:

    They are black or Liberal babies.

    Let black or Liberal mothers kill their own kids.

    More they kill the better.

    Fewer future blacks and Liberals is a good thing.

  2. J Yan says:

    Infanticide has been around since the dawn of man. Human organ transplantation has been around since, er, Mary Shelley. Which is the unnatural atrocity? Which is the bottomless slippery slope?

  3. casey says:

    You cannot protect the rights of the fetus-person without taking away the rights of a fully realized person. Every time I’ve challenged someone on this they simply say it doesn’t matter the woman (or girl) should have been more responsible, a poor response that doesn’t answer the charge. It’s a zero sum game. You can’t give them each 50% rights protection. You have to choose.

    PP didn’t agree to sell any baby parts as far as I know, and the numbers thrown about were ridiculously small- $30, $100. You call those big profits? Have you had a medical procedure lately? An aspirin costs more at a medical facility. Finally, abortions are a tiny, single digit part of PPs budget. This is a very misleading and illogical article.

    Oh, also: people talk like this all the time in the medical profession. Especially when they think they are speaking to others in the profession. Again, a poor argument. Let medical professionals, ethicists, and patients make their own decisions about things occurring inside the bodies of people who already exist and have rights that need protecting.

    • Replies: @David M.
  4. Dahlia says:

    Great article, I think Napolitano understands well the psychology here.

    BTW, the eugenicists’ arguments that keep being bandied about on the fringes here and at Lion of the Blogosphere…
    If the demographic trajectory we’ve been on since 1973 gets any better, *I won’t be able to stand it!*

    “Oh, but, but, but, if, if, if…”

    42 years, y’all, 42 years and that Paradise only keeps retreating…

    Go home.

  5. David M. says:

    PP didn’t agree to sell any baby parts as far as I know, and the numbers thrown about were ridiculously small- $30, $100.

    The videos made abundantly clear that there is already an existing market for the parts which the pp affiliates participate in.

    That the body parts are sold for small amounts only increases the horror and inhumanity of it all, but anyway:

    325,000 murdered babies x 3 body parts per corpse x $65 per part = $63,375,000

    Sounds like real money and a real market. And there would not be much of a market if the fetuses did not “already exist”.

    Medical professionals may speak cavalierly about human life, but we generally overlook or forgive this fault because they are engaged in the act of preserving human life. Not so in this case, and that is the point.

    • Replies: @casey
  6. Well, a fetus is not a baby so you can stop saying that. Is a fetus a person? Perhaps. But a woman is a person also. I think you will eventually overturn Roe by sheer persistence. But you will not end abortion.

    • Replies: @David M.
  7. David M. says:

    Since you have such a good handle on the terminology, can you please clarify something for me? Considering that the difference between a fetus and a baby is that a fetus is located inside the womb and a baby is located outside the womb, does that mean pp is murdering fetuses, but selling baby parts? Perhaps the logical solution to this problem would be for pp to deliver the parts to the buyers in a portable womb, so they would become fetus parts again.

    You are right though, we will never end abortion, just like we won’t ever end armed robbery, rape, and other assorted ills. Perhaps we should just legalize all of them.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  8. casey says:
    @David M.

    “overlook or forgive this fault because they are engaged in the act of preserving human life. Not so in this case, and that is the point.”

    Actually saving human life through research IS the point in this case.

    • Replies: @David M.
    , @schmenz
  9. @David M.

    Abortion kills a fetus. You can’t get baby parts from a fetus.

    I understand why you want to pretend that a fetus is a baby. Because killing a baby constitutes the crime of murder and you want to equate abortion with murder.

    I prefer safe and legal. And contraception. We appear to be on opposite sides of the argument. I doubt either of us will be persuaded. People (persons?) on my side of the argument stop reading as soon as they see “baby killer”. I’m only trying to help.

    • Replies: @schmenz
    , @David M.
    , @TWS
  10. David M. says:

    Since we are on the topic, here’s another example of researchers harvesting body parts to save lives:

    I don’t think they charged for the body parts like planned parenthood does though.

  11. schmenz says:

    Yes, Planned Parenthood is doing a wonderful service….just like Burke and Hare.

  12. schmenz says:

    I believe it’s fairly obvious why you stop reading when you see the phrase “baby killer”.

  13. David M. says:

    Well thank you for your help then. Let me see if I’ve got everything straight.

    Fetuses are not babies and should not be referred to as babies lest you offend people who are in favor of fetus killing. A fetus, regardless of whether it is viable or how developed it is, is still just a fetus so long as it is still in the womb. And killing fetuses is not murder, because after all it is just a fetus.

    But take that fetus out of the womb, and it becomes a real baby (i.e. it is no longer a “pretend” baby as you say). Then killing it is murder, because it is now located several inches away from where it was previously, which is of course the key distinction.

    Now this is where it gets a bit confusing. A foot (let’s say) taken from a fetus remains a fetus foot so long as the fetus was killed (but not murdered!) inside the womb, even though that foot is now outside of the womb and to the untrained eye might look exactly like a baby foot. But if you first took the fetus out of the womb, thus making it into a real baby, then killed it (now it’s murder!) and cut off its foot, that same exact foot would now be a baby foot. Got it.

    Please note, I was very careful to never call a fetus a baby in this post, so hopefully you were able to make it through the comment and you can continue helping me.

  14. TWS says:

    Thanks for the ‘help’ but no thanks. If you don’t want to call murder, murder then don’t we can all agree that it is homicide (the deliberate killing of a human being whether legal or illegal) rather than murder or abortion if you prefer.

    I prefer not available, illegal, and prosecuted by law. We should try it my way for a while. You’ve had your chance and we get human chop shops selling parts like the corner butcher. Extra bonus if it is late term and intact and cannot be murdered with pain killers because that ruins the tissue.

    Let’ try not to see if we can rack up a bigger body count than Communist China because we’ve already beat the Holocaust, The Armenian Genocide, and the Holodomor combined.

  15. Thanks for not calling a fetus a baby.

    There is a legal distinction between killing a fetus and killing a baby. Abortion is legal. Murder is not. When you succeed in outlawing abortion there will still probably be a distinction. The death penalty for example will probably not be used against women who have abortions.

    • Replies: @TWS
  16. casey says:

    “several inches away from where it was previously, which is of course the key distinction. ”

    Why is it so painful for you to admit that by “several inches away” you mean “inside a person’s body”? THAT is the key point you are avoiding dealing with.

    A fetus is not a “pretend baby” any more than a toddler is a “pretend teenager”

    • Replies: @schmenz
  17. When they volunteer to be their own abortifacient, civilizations die.

  18. TWS says:

    And yet both are described as homicides. Just as an execution is a homicide as is when you crush the skull of a baby or perhaps sever his spinal column as he cries after he’s removed.

    Moloch is the only one who appreciates your ‘wisdom’. Let’s hope the women simply have to live with the same legal penalties of anyone who commits first degree murder and of course the doctors be treated as serial killers.

  19. schmenz says:

    Casey, we are talking about two bodies here, the mother’s and the baby’s. I think it would be helpful if we kept that in mind.

    • Replies: @casey
  20. casey says:

    I am not the one who keeps leaving the pregnant girl/woman out of the equation. I suppose you agree with everyone else here in saying that a woman/girl automatically gives up/is stripped of her personhood/rights when she has sex/is raped?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  21. May God bless Judge Napolitano for speaking up for the “least of His children.” “What so ever you do for the least of mine, that you do unto Me.”

  22. @casey

    I am allowed to take Thalidomide but my wife is not, because at the moment she is pregnant. Has/is she “given up/been stripped of her personhood/rights” to take a substance that does no harm to either of us? (What’s with the jungle of slashes, by the way? Write normal, dammit.) What happened to her absolute right to her body?

    When a woman “has sex”, she makes herself responsible for the consequences of her actions. In the case of men, we call this “child support”. The shoe fits for women as well. Abortion is the withholding of child support, but with even more severe results.

    As for rape, are we willing to do to the perpetrator what you’re willing to do to his progeny? That would be entertaining to watch!

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS