According to two Australian ethicists, the baby in that photo should be killed if the parents so wish it, in what they call “after-birth abortion”. It’s not infanticide or murder to them. No, it’s just another form of abortion, because newborns aren’t really people yet. And while it sounds crazy and horrific, this unfortunately isn’t something I’m making up.
Once again proving how hated those who stand for life are in some corners of society, Sarah Fister Gale at Salon explains how Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum “would have killed my daughter.”
She explains how a prenatal test of her unborn baby’s amniotic fluid revealed that she had Rh negative disease, which would have been fatal to her if left undiscovered. The prenatal testing saved the child’s life by enabling Gale’s doctor to track her development, ensure that she was delivered at the safest time, given a full blood transfusion, and monitored to make certain the disease was eliminated. Thankfully, little Ella is alive and well today.
A new bill that is working its way through the U.S. House of Representatives has feminists and pro-abortion advocates hopping mad. The bill, The Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011, bans abortions performed because of race or gender. Sounds pretty straightforward, right? Who would really oppose something like that? After all, most Americans in this day and age are against discrimination.
The answer? Rabid feminists and abortion advocates who will fight against anything that may prevent abortions of any kind. The NAACP has, rather shockingly, come out against the bill — which, remember, would ban abortions performed solely based on race. You’d think that this would be something the NAACP would support, especially considering that a staggering 52% of black pregnancies end in abortion. But no, for those that support abortion, the so-called “choice” to kill your baby trumps all.
Likewise, considering that sex-selective abortion is a very real and rampant problem throughout the world–and one that specifically affects unborn females–you’d think that feminists would support this bill wholeheartedly. Michael Stokes Paulsen explains:
I listen to talk radio sometimes, mostly just while driving to and from work. (For you Occupiers out there, here is a link where you can learn more about this “work” thing. See in particular section 1.2, “Getting a Job.”)
For the past two days, a work assignment has required me to listen to talk radio all day long. I don’t really mind except that it gets me riled up.
Right now everybody’s talking about the HHS mandate requiring all employers — including Catholic hospitals and schools and other religious institutions and individuals — to provide insurance plans that include free contraception, sterilization, and abortion drugs for employees.
I already wrote about why this flies in the face of everything America is supposed to stand for — namely, liberty. (Occupiers, look that up too. It’s that thing that gets sacrificed when other people have to provide you with what you feel you deserve.)
I’ve written before about the horrible practice of “toin coss” abortions, where one healthy twin is aborted because (for whatever unacceptable reason) the mother does not want to have two babies born.
In a shocking story from Australia, a healthy 32-week twin was “accidentally” aborted when doctors mistakenly killed the healthy twin when they were attempting to abort the sick twin, as the Australian Herald Sun paper reports:
A Victorian mother, pregnant with twin boys she had already named, had made the agonising decision to abort one of the babies on doctors’ advice.
She had been told that one twin had a congenital heart defect that would require years of operations, if he survived at all.
An ultrasound clinician had checked the healthy baby, who was in a separate sac to the sick baby, before the termination.
But just after 2.30pm on Tuesday the wrong baby was injected, terminating the healthy pregnancy.
The mother then had an emergency caesarean section and the sick child was terminated in a three-hour operation.
The hospital has announced there will be an “investigation” into what went wrong. But obviously what went wrong is that doctors suggested to the mother that she abort one of her twins. The hospital in a statement called the mistake a “terrible tragedy” but how would they have described the outcome if the doctors had made the right choice about which child to abort? Would that be a “resounding success”?!
One of the great philosophical divisions of our time is between those who believe progress is steadily making mankind happier, healthier, and all-around better; and those who believe human nature is basically constant, with new developments just as capable of yielding evil as they are good. Both worldviews collide in a recent New York Post story on a new method of testing for Down Syndrome:
Last month, San Diego-based Sequenom released a test that allows doctors to screen for the most prevalent type of Down syndrome with only a blood test from the mother. The screening is available in 20 cities and is expected to hit New York soon. Two other companies have plans to release similar tests next year […]
Because the current methods of screening for Down syndrome, amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling, carry a risk of inducing miscarriage, only about 2% of pregnant women in the nation undergo the screening, says Dr. Brian Skotko, of the Down syndrome program at Children’s Hospital Boston.
The pro-life community has been buzzing for a week now about the “180” documentary. If you haven’t seen it yet, you can watch it for free at 180Movie.com. I had the opportunity to interview Ray Comfort, the author and filmmaker behind “180,” to ask him some questions about the movie. You can listen to the full audio interview (12 minutes) by clicking here, or you can read the transcript below.
Josh Brahm: Ray, how did you come up with the idea for “180?”
Ray Comfort: Well, I was – actually it wasn’t planned. I wrote a book called Hitler, God and the Bible and told the publishers, WorldNetDaily, that I was going to create a video called Hitler’s Religion and go with it, took part of the manuscript and made it into a TV script and found it was just too big, too long, and too confusing and I actually gave up. I said, “Look, I’m taking a camera out in the streets to find out what people believe about Hitler” and we just abandoned the script. And I came back with 14 interviews of people who didn’t know who Hitler was. That really, really blew me away. And then I bumped into a guy named Steve who was a neo-Nazi, black-hating, Jew-hating, Hitler-loving, America-hating atheist who had a 14-inch blue Mohawk and that was very colorful footage. And then I was heckled by a German neo-Nazi, Jew-hater and we managed to get him on a hidden camera and a hidden microphone and then I bumped into a Russian Jew who happened to have lost his relatives in the Holocaust.
Most have already forgotten the inhuman treatment of more than seven hundred Guatemalan prisoners and mental health patients sixty years ago at the hands of American medical researchers, not to mention the belated apology from the Department of State one year ago today.
Dr. John C. Cutler and his Public Health Service team performed secretive experiments in Guatemala, intentionally infecting indigenous peoples with gonorrhea and syphilis without their knowledge or consent. Dr. Cutler was later a lead researcher during the infamous Tuskegee experiment, in which black Americans with syphilis were denied information about their condition and left untreated for decades. He and others passively observed as more than one hundred black men died of the disease and related conditions.
When was the last time you watched a 30 minute video on YouTube? For me, I can’t even remember. So when I hit “play” on this video I thought I would give it a few minutes and move on. I didn’t. I watched it until the end in one sitting.
Now, it’s not perfect, but it reveals some things stunningly well: first, that many people’s views on the question of abortion are not deeply set. They’ve simply never been presented with a different way of seeing things, led by someone who can use logic, history and empathy to persuade. In the moral vacuum which dominates so much of American culture, evil flourishes. Inject even a small amount of the truth and, well, you’ll see.
The video makes another critical point — though it doesn’t explicitly mention it: abortion, the presence of evil in the world, the history of genocide, morality, ethics, history, the afterlife, faith, all of these things are related. Too often we focus on abortion without realizing that people’s acceptance of abortion is wrapped up with other, even deeper, issues.
The bioethics blog Secondhand Smoke discusses the implications of sex-selective abortions here, and the dangers of making life or death decisions based on a cop-out idea of “family balancing.” Sex-selective abortions are no longer taking place solely in Communist China… and the problem may start hitting hard right in the cities and suburbs of the U.S.
The NYT certainly has been writing about our emerging brave new world of industrial proreative manufacture and quality control lately. Today’s installment discusses how a new blood test of the mom can detect gender at 7 weeks–without ultrasound that can bond a mother to her gestating child. So much easier that way to discard the unwanted wrong sex nuisance! Moreover, the wrong sex tissue bundle can be flushed away using RU 486 with no one the wiser! How wonderful that the whole eugenic process can be made less emotionally difficult for people for whom not just any baby will do.
It’s eugenics. …this is an area where medical conscience should be protected. No medical professional should be forced to be complicit in the eugenic destruction of human life.
The New York Times recently printed this powerful and heartbreaking article of a woman’s first-hand account of pregnancy “reduction,” aka. aborting one baby while allowing the other to continue developing in the womb. The desperatation of wanting another child pushed this mother into years and years of fertility treatments. Once she conceived however, the “wanted” child came along with an unfortunate “unwanted” twin:
She was 45 and pregnant after six years of fertility bills, ovulation injections, donor eggs and disappointment — and yet here she was, 14 weeks into her pregnancy, choosing to extinguish one of two healthy fetuses, almost as if having half an abortion. As the doctor inserted the needle into Jenny’s abdomen, aiming at one of the fetuses, Jenny tried not to flinch, caught between intense relief and intense guilt.
“We created this child in such an artificial manner — in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me — and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.”
For all its successes, reproductive medicine has produced a paradox: in creating life where none seemed possible, doctors often generate more fetuses than they intend. In the mid-1980s, they devised an escape hatch to deal with these megapregnancies, terminating all but two or three fetuses to lower the risks to women and the babies they took home. But what began as an intervention for extreme medical circumstances has quietly become an option for women carrying twins. With that, pregnancy reduction shifted from a medical decision to an ethical dilemma. As science allows us to intervene more than ever at the beginning and the end of life, it outruns our ability to reach a new moral equilibrium. We still have to work out just how far we’re willing to go to construct the lives we want.