Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Abortion: can we call it was it is, and stop calling it what it isn’t?

What it isn’t is a woman’s health issue, nor a woman’s right to choose.

With two exceptions, no woman, no man, no human has the “right” to choose to end the life of another human, regardless of age.

Trending: The Definitive List of things Democrats have Done to America

Most would think that when I say, two exceptions, I’m thinking of the same tired old excuse of, “except in the case of life or health of the mother.”

take our poll - story continues below

Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism?

  • Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Well, you’d be half right. The “health” of the mother is an all-encompassing copout, making it easier for pro-abortion activists to help legitimize the practice.

The following scenario is one I would hope no one ever has to find themselves in, and, in my opinion, the only acceptable “choice” during a pregnancy.

A woman is pregnant. Somewhere along the way, the doctor tells the woman, or couple, that there is a serious complication and that in every case before, one or the other, the mother or the baby, would have to be sacrificed. Both have never lived through the pregnancy, nor birth.

So therein lays the decision – the “choice.” Do you decide to save the mother at the cost of the baby, or the baby at the cost of the mother? Either way, this seemingly impossible choice must be made prior to labor.

And by the way – it’s a human baby – not a fetus, a blastosphere, embryo, or blastula. It will never grow into a pig or a cabbage. It will never transform into a toaster or a truck. From the moment of conception, that fertilized egg will forever be a human being.

The other exception is pretty simple – a combat operation or similar civilian event where it is clearly kill or be killed.

So we now know, as if we didn’t previously, what not to call an abortion. It’s not a woman’s choice, abortion, the latest barbaric procedure known as post-birth abortion, nor is it even infanticide.

What it is, is straight up homicide – murder – even, dare I say, genocide.

The definition of genocide is “the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.”

Racist eugenicists like Francis Galton, Aldous Huxley, and Margaret Sanger, the mother of Planned Parenthood, developed modern day abortions to cull society of the less productive, deficient, unwanted and especially the racially inferior – blacks in particular. It’s why even today an estimated 79 percent of all abortion clinics are located in or near minority neighborhoods.

It was the original goal of Sanger and the like to rid society of the inferior black race. “More than 19 million Black babies have been aborted since the 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision legalized abortion in our country.” If that’s not genocide, please tell me what is.

Now to the latest atrocity offered up by the Godless radicals of the left – post-birth abortion. Some on the right have come to call it infanticide. But to me, this is not a sufficient definition. That word still attempts to “downplay,” or somehow soften the action.

Why call killing a baby infanticide, yet refer to the killing of an adult as murder or homicide? The age of the victim is immaterial.

Let’s first talk murder. There are really two classifications of murder – first and second degree. Second degree may encompass malice aforethought but is not premeditated. The assailant didn’t go into the confrontation necessarily intending to murder. First degree encompasses both malice aforethought and the predetermination to kill another.

Many would say that “post-birth” abortion may not fall under either category. While I disagree, I will concede the point.

But if the barbaric act isn’t murder, it sure as hell is homicide.

Homicide is defined as the act of one human killing another. A homicide requires only a volitional act by another person that results in death.

The key word here is volitional. Volitional means voluntary, or done by an act of will. It refers to something intentional, premeditated, deliberate, conscious.

By locking a baby away in a closet or making it “comfortable,” the result will be the same – the deliberate, volitional act resulting in the death of a newborn human being.

So let’s all cut the crap, and the word games, and call this latest proposed practice what it is. It is homicide, plain and simple.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

The Common Constitutionalist

Brent Smith, aka The Common Constitutionalist, is a constitutional conservative who advocates for first principles – the founders' original intent and enemy of progressives. He is former Navy and a martial arts expert. Smith considers himself just an average Joe with no formal journalism background – but rather than simply complain about the state of our nation, he took to the Internet to battle the left.


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?

Send this to a friend