In England, they've been killing babies in their mother's wombs for the crime of having minor, easily correctible birth defects. If the mother should have the right to abort her child up until the point of birth, as she does in the USA (the "mental health of the mother" hole in Roe), then why shouldn't she do this? Why shouldn't mothers abort their unborn children because they are females, as they do in some Asian countries? If unborn life is not sacred, but the mother's choice is, then this practice is morally justified.
Why, as Amy suggests, does no one ask these questions in the MSM?
You watch: if scientists should ever discover a gay gene, homosexuals will be aborted out of existence, just as people with Down syndrome now are being done. Good liberals will justify their decision as a merciful one, saying it is wrong to bring a gay child into this world of bigotry (maybe they'll even believe it themselves). And the only people fighting to stop this crime against humanity will be Catholics and other pro-life Christians.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Subscribe
Tom Storck hit this in the Spring 1992 issue of Caelum et Terra. If you'll bear with extended quote:
I think "grotesque and obscene" sums it up pretty well. Whole article here.>
They will justify it just like pro-life Christians and some Catholics justify the state executing children, the mentally retarded, and the mentally ill who commit crimes. They will justify it like Catholics who turn a blind-eye to immigrants and talk about fences and deportation instead of compassion.
Because they are flawed.>
This is not a new issue. I remember reading a WSJ article about a couple who had done genetic screening in the late 80's (sorry, I can't give an exact date). They found a gene in their baby which they were informed meant their child had a 1-in-4 chance of being a criminal. No kidding. 1-in-4 was unacceptable odds for the father, a policeman, so they aborted against the mother's better judgement. I remember thinking, 1-in-4? What about the 3-in-4 odds that this kid will be fine? What about trusting themselves as parents? It stuck in my mind for that reason, and also for the ridiculousness of the eugenic claim about criminality. What's scary about the new version is that people are comfortable with later and later eugenic abortions, rather than earlier and earlier ones. So now we have convenience abortions in the first trimester and eugenic ones in the second and third trimesters. Great.>
I was born in Georgia, lived in Kentucky, then in Kenya, then in Connecticut, then Kentucky and Germany (briefly) before being back to Kentucky for the last 20 years. I travel in the west extensively. Some of what you say about California is something I have felt throughout the west. Riding fences with a rancher in Nebraska, I was asked what a conservative Christian was. I told him, someone who believes the Bible, believes the church's traditional doctrines, and expects members to strive in faith to be obedient. He could not comprehend that. Living in the"big sky" country, he just could not imagine any life except the one he could define for himself. The old saying was "No law west of the Mississippi, No God west of the Pecos..."
To a certain extent, California seems to me simply to epitomize a sensibility I find all over the west. Less rooted in tradition and more tied to the rhythms of the land and climate. Conservative faith seems to them more "eastern" somehow.
That's just my own impression, though.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.