Does that sound like an absurd question? Believe it or not, it is already legal for physicians in the Netherlands to give newborns which are born with disabilities a lethal injection at the parent’s request. Hundreds have died as a result. And, certain “ethicists” are recommending that we consider it for society as a whole.
Actually, in a way, we actually do practice a form of infanticide in our nation already. In yesterday’s blog, I wrote about Abby, a little girl who was born with a condition that affected her ability to swallow. One physician asked her parents what they wanted him to do if the baby experienced cardiac arrest, and responded with obvious disapproval when they told him they wanted him to do all he could to save her. One can only wonder how many babies are simply allowed to die if it is determined that they are “not worth saving.”
Until recently, an abortion technique was used in which a saline injection was used to suffocate babies in the womb. It was discontinued, however, when too many of those burned children actually survived and were born alive. Now, through more barbaric measures, abortionists make certain that no one survives.
However, in the years that some of the little ones did come out breathing, many abortionists would just leave the baby in a closet or somewhere out-of-the-way until, as the result of inattention, the breathing stopped. In the state of Illinois, a bill was up before the legislature to legally force these “doctors” to provide the living child with medical care. One of the legislators to vote against this bill, and therefore vote in favor of leaving newborns to die untreated, was our own President Obama. What is the real difference between allowing newborns to die without available medical care and giving them a lethal injection? With both, a precious life is lost that could have been cared for and saved.
Yesterday I gave three cases of children whom doctors had written off in the womb and suggested to their parents that it would be better off for them to be aborted than to face a possible medical condition. All three of these children were, in fact, born with what we consider “handicaps,” and the road has been a difficult one for them, but all three are also now thriving and happy. The bottom line is that doctors are often wrong in their diagnosis. And, they are always wrong in handing out death sentences to unborn children as a solution for any situation, no matter how grim.
I read an article today about some so-called “ethicists” who have also come to the conclusion that children should not be aborted because of a condition which may or may not occur, or if the severity of the condition is not fully known. However, their solution is horrific and totally contrary to mine! These men, based in Australia and Italy, were making the argument that parents and physicians should wait until the child is born, and then, if the medical condition is severe enough, perform what they call a “post-birth abortion.”
Yes, you read that right. Alberto Giubilin, from the University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, of the University of Melbourne, made the case in a recent journal article, that we should wait until the child is born before making a decision to kill it or not. To quote them: “…parents of a child with a poor prenatal diagnosis should wait until the child is born, when they can make an informed decision about the chance that their child has of living a ‘satisfactory’ life.” They had the audacity to add: “We join disability activists who condemn the routine recommendation of abortions performed for no other reason than to prevent the birth of an affected baby.” Um, excuse me, but those activists are not in approval of killing them off after birth either.
Actually, it is not just disabled children that they are in favor of killing. No, they believe that unborn children and newborns both fit in the same classification as pre-humans who cannot yet make cognitive decisions concerning their own lives. They have determined that until they can defend themselves, they don’t have the “moral status of actual persons” and are “morally irrelevant.”
Huh? Personally I think both of them are “morally irrelevant.” Does that give me the right to kill them? And, what happens to any of us if we should have an accident and are lying in a coma, unable to speak up for ourselves? Does that make us “morally irrelevant?” Or, how about the elderly that have reverted back to an infantile state? Sadly, I know the answer to that. The Netherlands have already legalized both infanticide and euthanasia, under this very type of reasoning.
Once we eliminate conception as the beginning point of life and randomly select some point in the future as the designation of when our humanness begins, this type of thinking will always occur. Conception is the only scientific point that makes any sense. If we are allowed to pick and choose for ourselves, why not determine that we become human when we begin to walk, or talk, or even be able to express rational thoughts? Maybe we shouldn’t stop at newborns, maybe we should make wait until we find out how smart a child is before deciding if they are worthy of life and protection. It is all just evil nonsense!
As President Obama’s vote in Illinois shows, the whole infanticide debate is not far below the surface here or anywhere else. As long as we tolerate the idea that some life has more value than other life, born or unborn, we are all at risk. It all starts with abortion. Where it goes from there remains to be seen.
Keeping it true! Barb