If we agree that abortion after 22 weeks must now be regarded as infanticide, then the answer must be \’yes\’. It must be in the public interest to prevent the killing of babies. A society which permitted it would simply be inhumane and uncivilised, not a society in which we would choose to live. After all, we are often told that the civilisation of a society is to be judged by how well it cares for its most vulnerable members and few could be more vulnerable than premature babies. But of course, if the law is changed, they will not be premature babies. Are we then to think of these 23- and 24-week-old foetuses, now to be left in utero, their lives preserved, as vulnerable members of society?
We ought to pay less attention to the destruction of life by abortion than to the quality of life of those who are allowed to live.
I think the part of the second quote that revolts me is "allowed to live". If we have accepted the first part* then "allow" is entirely the wrong word. For we do not "allow" humans beings to live, we defend their right to do so. To fail in that truly would "be inhumane and uncivilised, not a society in which we would choose to live."
*Yes, it does of course all depend upon the acceptance of that first part, when is a human a human?