According to Leftists, late-term abortion is the most compassionate, kind and caring decision a woman could make for her unborn baby. There has been a recent uptick in cases of women declaring that the reason they aborted their baby is because it was the best decision for their child. Two recent events highlight this.
A recent op-ed appeared in The New York Times from a woman defending and explaining her decision to kill her unborn child. The article is titled, “I Had a Late-Term Abortion. I Am Not a Monster.”
According to the woman, she had a late-term abortion after her baby was diagnosed with “severe brain abnormalities.”
The piece begins saying, “I am a baby killer. I stopped mid-step on my way into my office in Manhattan, and that thought scrolled through my brain yet again: ‘I am a baby killer.’ It was an April day this year, nine weeks after I ended my child’s life.”
What’s remarkable about this article is that it does not attempt to disguise abortion as a “termination,” nor does it describe an unborn baby as a “clump of cells.” Rather, the author repeatedly acknowledges that her unborn baby was in fact her child. “My husband and I chose to end our child’s life,” the author concedes.
The author claims that, “Allowing her (the baby) to live would have been a fate worse than death. Her diagnosis was not fatal, not incompatible with the bare mechanics of a living body. But it was incompatible with a fulfilling life. And that makes all the difference to me. That’s why I call myself ‘pro-life.’” The piece ends the woman saying, “I know I made the best choice for my child. I do not regret it, and I will not hide it.”
Yet this article is not the only example of the push to normalize, dare I say, promote late-term abortion as compassionate and caring for the child.
In a recent hearing in the House Oversight Committee concerning state-level abortion laws, one of the witnesses called to testify, Ms. Box, confessed her late-term abortion after receiving a fatal prenatal diagnosis for their unborn daughter. “Our daughter, if not stillborn, would be born into a life of immediate and repeated invasive medical intervention.”
“With broken hearts, we knew that the greatest act of love that we could undertake as her parents would be to suffer ourselves instead, to end the pregnancy, grant Libby peace and spare her tiny broken body a short life full of pain,” Ms. Box said. “I made the most important decision of Libby’s life when together with my husband we decided to terminate the pregnancy. It was a sacred, painful and personal decision.”
Now, one must ask how ending the life of a child could ever be in the child’s best interest? But these two women who are professing their love for their unborn babies, while simultaneously defending their decision to kill them, are missing three fundamental points.
First, in both cases the women are claiming that they made the most compassionate and caring decision possible for their baby. They claim that had their baby been born, they would have lived a life unworthy of life.
Yet, this same argument was used by Adolf Hitler to justify killing certain parts of the population whose lives weren’t worth living. The German term, “Lebensunwertes Leben” (life unworthy of life) was a term designated for the disabled and elderly, those who did not have a right to live. And the Nazis exterminated them because their imperfections.
Knowingly or not, these women are justifying their late-term abortions with the same arguments Hitler used to defend killing whole groups of people.
A second distinction that these women fail to make is the difference between allowing for a natural death and actively killing a child.
It’s a non sequitur to say that since a child would be better off dead (which isn’t the case), it’s OK to kill the child. That doesn’t follow. Even if a parent thinks a child would live a terrible life and would be better off dead, it is not then moral to kill the child.
Finally, the argument these women are using could also be used to rationalize the killing of two-year-old children. If a two-year-old sustained a debilitating injury that would make their life unworthy of living, would it be OK to kill the toddler? Taken to its logical conclusion, one could argue that it would be moral, compassionate even, to kill the two-year-old child.
For years pro-abortion organizations insisted that unborn babies are just “clumps of cells.” But now that the world can clearly see life in the womb due to ultrasound technology, their arguments seem to be changing.
Let’s be clear. Every child, no matter any extenuating medical situation, is precious and has infinite worth. We have a moral obligation to care for every person, born or unborn.
Killing an innocent child is never compassionate.
If you or someone you know has had or is considering an abortion, you can receive a free counseling consultation by calling 1-855-771-HELP (4357) or by filling out a counseling consultation request form here.