Would You Consider Abortion in These Four Situations? Babies Are Aborted for Not Being Perfect

Would You Consider Abortion in These Four Situations?

1. There is a preacher and wife who are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she is pregnant with her 15th. They are living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending abortion?

2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. They have 4 children. The first is blind, the second is dead. The third is deaf and the fourth has TB. The mother finds she is pregnant again. Given the extreme situation, would you recommend abortion?

3. A man raped a 13 year old black girl and she got pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?

4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She is not married. Her fiancee is not the father of the baby, and he is very upset. Would you recommend an abortion?

If you have answered “yes” to any of these situations:

In the first case you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists of the 19th century.

In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven.

In the third case you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer.

In the fourth case you would have recommended the murder of Jesus Christ.

With U. S. abortion deaths topping 50 million, only God knows what we have sacrificed in lost human talent and creativity.

For more famous people with defects & deformities who might have been aborted, please scroll down the page.
_________________________________________________________

Disability: The Case Against Abortion

As shocking a reality as this is, abortion advocates would have you believe that putting a child to death is an acceptable solution to that child's physical or mental disability.

In much the same way that they argue for aborting children who might grow up in poverty, abortion advocates also argue for the right to abort children who might grow up with a disability...as if disease or handicap somehow strips a person of their right to live and relegates them to a life of misery.

Such a suggestion is barbaric and inhumane and has no place in a just society. There are children of all ages, and adults too, who are alive today and are living through all manner of disease and disability. Do these physical limitations make them less than human? Is killing everyone who is sick really an acceptable way to treat sickness?

The only reason anyone can suggest for children before birth what they would never suggest after birth is that they are assuming something about that child which they have not proven. Anyone who argues that abortion is a necessary safeguard against a life of suffering and disability is assuming that the unborn child is not yet a living human being.

But this is exactly the point that they must prove before they can even begin to make such claims. Disability isn't the issue, it's humanity. We do not kill people for their disabilities, period. Therefore, unless we're not human beings before we're born, our disabilities should no more disqualify us from life before birth than they do after birth.

Read the entire article.
_________________________________________________________

The War on 'Defective' Children

In May, Britain’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority authorized a London clinic to screen for a condition called “squint.”

Squint causes the affected eye to look inwards or outwards instead of straight ahead. Squint can be treated various ways: eyeglasses, temporary patches, eye drops and, in the most severe cases, surgery.

The Authority’s ruling was in response to a businessman who has this condition and his wife, who “[wanted] to ensure they do not have a severely cross-eyed child.”

The clinic will employ a technique known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Previously, PGD had been limited to cases involving “life-shortening conditions such as cystic fibrosis and fatal blood disorders.” Then the uses of PGD began to expand. Doctors have used it to screen for genetic evidence of possible adult diseases like cancer and early-onset Alzheimer’s.

Now, they’re using it for cosmetic imperfections. As David King of Human Genetics Alert said: “We moved from preventing children who will die young to those who might become ill in middle age. And now we discard those who will live as long as the rest of us but are cosmetically imperfect.”

The man who will perform the test agrees. Gedis Grudzinskas predicts that the use of embryo screening for “severe cosmetic defects” will increase because of the ruling. By “severe” he means anything that might cause a family “severe distress,” like the wrong hair color, which could lead to “bullying” and “even suicide.”

Anybody who is surprised by this story simply hasn’t been paying attention. As I’ve previously told BreakPoint listeners, genetic testing has turned people with Down syndrome into an endangered species. Actually, they might survive if they weren’t human: If they were wolves or ferrets, someone might actually care that they were being eliminated.

Read the entire article.
_________________________________________________________

Babies Aborted For Not Being Perfect

The ethical storm over abortions has been renewed as it emerged that terminations are being carried out for minor, treatable birth defects.

Late terminations have been performed in recent years because the babies had club feet, official figures show.

Other babies were destroyed because they had webbed fingers or extra digits.

Such defects can often be corrected with a simple operation or physiotherapy.

The revelation sparked fears that abortion is increasingly being used to satisfy couples' desire for the 'perfect' baby.

A leading doctor said people were right to be 'totally shocked' that abortions were being carried out for such conditions.[/quote]

Before this thread floats off into the luminiferous ether, I hope that the article below will resonate with, or at least give someone pause, on the subject of frivolous abortions. Legal, yes, but not a good idea.

How can anyone justify aborting a baby that has a club foot? But it is perfectly legal whenever you have abortion on demand. The woman can exercise her choice and abort anytime and for any reason, no matter how selfish or frivolous.

But here is the very important distinction. Just because it is legal to do something does not necessarily make it a good idea. This is what I mean when I say abortion should be the last choice, not the first. Too many abortions are done because of an excess of selfishness or a deficit of coping skills. It's legal, her choice, and all that.

Take a look at this list of famous people with handicaps. If they were unborns today, how many of them would be aborted for a club foot or some other minor imperfection?

__________________________________________________________________

Abortion's Dead Poets Society

"Words are things; and a small drop of ink,
Falling like dew upon a thought, produces
That which makes thousands, perhaps millions think."
- Lord Byron (1788-1824), from "Don Juan"

Lord Byron never finished his masterpiece, the epic poem "Don Juan," but he might never have begun it had he been conceived today.

For Byron was born with a slight deformity - a clubfoot - that nonetheless left intact whatever degree of self-esteem is necessary to support a galloping libido. He further reduced his handicap to irrelevance by swimming the Hellespont (today's Dardanelles Strait) in tribute to Leander and Hero, the drowned lovers about whom he wrote a verse.

The week before, in what could have been a prequel to the child-actor story, Britain's Sunday Times reported that more than 20 babies had been aborted in advanced stages of gestation between 1996 and 2004 in England because scans showed they had clubfeet. Had these parents never heard of Dudley Moore, the British actor who also had a clubfoot?

Another four babies were aborted because they had extra digits or webbed fingers, according to the same story. In 2002, a baby was aborted at 28 weeks because of a cleft palate. Last year, a 6-month-old fetus was aborted when ultrasound revealed that part of a foot was missing, according to the Times.

One doesn't have to believe in the supernatural to wonder what might have been. Not only with the babies who were known to be slightly imperfect, but also with the millions of others worldwide who have been eliminated for reasons less vivid.

Since abortion was legalized in 1973, estimates are that some 50 million of them have been performed in the U.S. Of that number, relatively few have been owing to fetal defects as compared to lifestyle concerns, according to a 2004 Alan Guttmacher Institute study.

While it may be intellectually easier to justify aborting a fetus in cases of severe abnormalities, terminating a pregnancy because of easily corrected imperfections should disturb our sleep. If parents can be moved to abort their babies because of smallish flaws, how long before designer babies become the norm - or abortions are performed when babies have the wrong eye color or are the wrong sex?

These are not mere rhetorical questions. Already women shop sperm banks for idealized traits, from blond curls to blue eyes, the way we now design dream cars online. In such a commodified world, where hope is replaced by expectation, can disappointment and rejection be far behind?

The list of accomplished people with birth defects, meanwhile, is long. Two born with clubfeet are Kristi Yamaguchi, the 1992 Olympic champion figure skater, and U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (1792-1868), who helped draft the 14th Amendment and the Reconstruction Act.

Imagine what our cultural conversation would have been without Soren Kierkegaard, the Danish existentialist philosopher - a hunchback with uneven legs. Or Juan Ruiz de Alarcon, the 17th century Mexican dramatist, who also was a hunchback and wrote some 20 dramas including "La Verdad Sospechosa."

Translated, "The Suspicious Truth" is an apt title for the argument that reproductive choice always trumps all other considerations, or that any and all birth defects conscribe a child to a life not worth living.

Obviously, no one wishes anything but perfect children for all mothers and fathers. Ask expectant parents what they want, meaning a boy or a girl, and they'll usually answer "ten fingers and ten toes." By which most mean they'll love whatever they get.

And most do. Even so, the slippery slope isn't a cliche for nothing. As we learn of these incremental forays into prenatal selectivity, we might pause to consider where such thinking leads.

If we don't want to grant life to those afflicted with small deformities, where do we set the bar for "good enough"? More important, perhaps, what is the cost to our humanity - not to mention the poet's soul - when the imperfect have no place among the living?"

___________________________________________________________________

Abortion: The Perfect Cure for Down's Syndrome

Last month ACOG (American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists) recommended that all pregnant women, regardless of their age, be offered screening for Down's syndrome because improved diagnostics now more accurately detect Down syndrome earlier in pregnancy.

Conveniently, this makes the option of choosing abortion easier. Or, as ACOG delicately puts it, screening allows OB-GYNs "to best meet the needs of their patients." Here, of course, getting rid of the mother's pregnancy is the "need" that has to be met.

The reality is that once a Down diagnosis is given, counseling of the parents is often biased against completing the pregnancy. Parents are much more likely to be told that a Down child will have a low quality of life or that he will require expensive medical care over his entire lifespan. A positive counterbalance is rare.

Essentially, ACOG's latest recommendation has taken a giant leap toward making the abortion of preborn children with Down syndrome socially acceptable, using the "it's for the best" excuse.

The tragic result? More of these children's lives are ended before they even draw their first breath than ever before.

Unborn Down children now are considered a medically negative symptom of pregnancy.

That's what we used to think of them decades ago: Imperfect beings with mental retardation and chronic medical problems that needed to be shut away because they were different. No school. Few, if any, friends. No real life to speak of.

Parents and other advocates have fought long and hard to have people with Down included in all aspects of society. Their efforts have meant increased tolerance and respect for the differences associated with the syndrome.

Today, people with Down in the U.S. are arguably better served and included than ever before. Their increased public visibility has helped us all become more mindful of our common humanity.

Read the entire article.

Also check out these pro-life posts:

Should You Abort When Doctor Says Baby is Abnormal, Disabled, Defective?