Unborn children need the same protections as harbor seals

A three-day-old harbor seal rescued on Atlantic Beach, Long Island.

A three-day-old harbor seal rescued on Atlantic Beach, Long Island.

We care so much for our pets' safety that we even take them for walks in special doggy strollers.

We care so much for our pets’ safety that we even take them for walks in special doggy strollers.

In December 1972,  one month before the U.S. Supreme Court made it legal to kill children in the womb up until their due date for any reason, a new law passed by Congress went into effect.  The Marine Mammal Protection Act made it illegal to approach, harbor, feed, or kill, all marine mammals – including dolphins, whales, sea lions, even polar bears. I was reminded of this law this morning when I heard about a newborn harbor seal that was rescued on Atlantic Beach on Long Island, his umbilical cord still attached, his mother nowhere to be found.

It’s impossible not to feel for this baby seal, with his big, sad eyes, and to hope that somehow he will be reunited with his mother, or adopted by another female harbor seal for the month that he needs to nurse. I’m willing to guess that just about everyone who sees his picture will have that instinctively protective reaction.

We love our pets. We love wildlife. We brake for animals. We use seatbelts and strollers for our dogs. What we don’t seem to care quite so much about is the most innocent and helpless human beings among us, those still in the womb.

As I discussed in my book, “Recall Abortion,” I learned a stark lesson about the different ways we view humans and animals when I was a public school teacher. A pro-choice colleague and I were hatching baby chickens in our first-grade classroom. One day we discovered an egg had broken open prematurely and we could see the beating heart of a baby chick that was not going to survive. My colleague, who equated abortion with “reproductive justice,” was desperate to find a way to save this chick and heartbroken when we couldn’t.

We offer animals unconditional love, and we are hyper-vigilant in our efforts to protect them. But children in the womb only get our love and protection if they are “wanted.”

Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell was sentenced in May to three consecutive life terms for killing three late-term babies born alive after abortion. Originally he was charged with seven such murders, but four were dismissed because it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt those babies were born alive. These were second- and third-trimester babies who had a fighting chance of surviving. Whether he killed them inside the womb or outside makes no difference, or at least it shouldn’t. These babies with their umbilical cords attached deserve at least as much protection as the newborn harbor seal who made the news this morning.



Consider this paragraph from the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act:

Marine mammals have proven themselves to be resources of great international

significance, esthetic and recreational as well as economic, and it is the sense of the

Congress that they should be protected and encouraged to develop to the greatest extent

feasible commensurate with sound policies of resource management and that the primary

objective of their management should be to maintain the health and stability of the marine



What about the health and stability of the human ecosystem irreparably harmed by abortion? Fifty-five million abortions in the United States since Roe vs. Wade. Two hundred million “missing girls” around the world as the result of gender-selective abortion. Untold millions of women and men regretting a choice no one would have made for the harbor seal rescued on Long Island.


Isn’t it time we treat our children with the same protective instincts we have toward animals?

Isn’t it time to recall abortion?

To order Janet’s book, go to www.RecallAbortion.com

One Response to “Unborn children need the same protections as harbor seals”

  1. Dan Walther says:

    Can you imagine today’s pro-choice argument being used in 1860 ? It would go something like this….

    “The question of slavery should be left to the slave owners and their property”.

    Most people would find tht argument prettty disgusting.

Leave a Reply

WP-SpamFree by Pole Position Marketing