Friday, November 10, 2006

Abortion's Slippery Slope

In my latest Potomac News column, I get back to issues, which I'm much more comfortable with than writing about candidates for office. In the article, I use two recent news reports to highlight the harm abortion is causing society.

In "Abortion's Slippery Slope", I argue that a British proposal to allow termination of babies born with birth defects is the next logical step for abortionists, which could be extended using their logic to healthy children. And I note that a criminal case pending against abortion clinic staff in Florida is simply the natural outcome of being employed to kill babies.

Potomac News
Thursday, November 9, 2006

Some day, we will look back at abortion as one of the great tragedies of our time. Abortion is a cancer on our society, a gruesome testament to a self-centered age. The lies advanced in support of the killing infect the very core of our culture, and the consequences reach far beyond the genocide of millions of humans of every race, color, and creed.

Two recent stories highlight the profound impact of abortion, revealing a rip in the moral fabric of society that will tear us apart if we do not wake up. A warning: these stories should disgust and sicken you, although possibly some people are already too desensitized by the abortion culture to grasp the horror.

The first is a news report from Florida, where last July "Miami-Dade County police found the badly decomposed body of a baby girl" at an abortion facility. A woman waiting to complete an abortion delivered the baby in the waiting room. For five minutes, the woman "watched her daughter moving and gasping for air."

But the staff did nothing to help the girl. Instead, they took the newborn baby and suffocated her in a plastic bag. Later, the body was "treated with a caustic chemical and left in the heat of the Florida sun to accelerate decomposition in a possible attempt to dispose of the evidence."

How could the medical staff kill the child rather than help her? Well, they are trained to kill babies. Unlike many of their patients, abortion doctors and staff know what they are doing. They know that, for many of the babies they "terminate," they could just as easily be using their training to successfully deliver and save those babies. Their actions hinge only on whether the mother decides to let the baby live or not.

So it was no stretch for the abortion clinic staff to finish the job they started, even though the baby was already born, and the mother expressed no interest in having the pregnancy "terminated," having seen her child and realized the mistake she had made. The staff just did what they are paid to do.

But a local police deputy knows better, saying "This isn't about a botched abortion; there never was an abortion, and the mother is not the victim … The victim is the baby, and whether that baby had an hour or eight hours' worth of life, she had a right to that."

Meanwhile, a group of doctors in England are pushing for a law to allow killing newborn babies born with birth defects. According to an article in this week's London Sunday Times, the doctors are concerned about the impact disabled children have on families: "active euthanasia" should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies."

Highlighting the relationship between their proposal and the abortion of babies up to the moment of birth, the study says "If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome."

In other words, if parents could have the babies killed after they are born, they might not kill them before birth. If the doctors succeed in their quest, their argument will be extended to healthy babies, as the "logic" is not restricted to the disabled. A mother can abort her baby at any time for almost any reason. What if a mother isn't sure she wants her child? Rather than making her "choose" before birth, offer a "grace period." She can spend a few days with the newborn, and make an "informed" decision to keep her baby, or have it killed, just as these doctors would do with disabled children.

I know that is sick, but that's where abortion-on-demand has taken us. Once we accept the concept of killing unwanted or unhealthy pre-born children, all we are arguing about is at what age children gain their right to "humanity." Most people still cringe when mothers kill their newborn children, but it's just a matter of time before no life is safe from those for whom "quality of life" is a euphemism for "killing those we find inconvenient."

No comments: