I read this article by the BBC and I wanted to scream at the screen. In particular, I was mortified by this utter lack of logic:
In 2016, Erika Christensen was pregnant and living in New York with her husband. The couple were thrilled.
However, at 31 weeks, she found out that her pregnancy was "nonviable", meaning that the baby would not survive outside the womb.
Ms Christensen told the BBC that she "didn't know about the law" banning abortion in New York beyond 24 weeks.
"We wanted to end the suffering of this child. It was a simple choice."
After doing some research she realised she would have to leave the state to terminate her pregnancy.
She borrowed $10,000 (£7,600) from her mum, and flew halfway across the country to have an abortion in Colorado.
HELLO!! "END THE SUFFERING OF THE CHILD" by ripping it limb from limb in utero???? Crushing it's skull and evacuating it's brains??? Rather than let a child peacefully and safely develop in it's mother's womb, be delivered, and then die in the loving embrace of it's family, they chose to end this child's "suffering" by the most violent form of death imaginable. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Somehow this family has convinced itself that this brutal murder is "kind"???? What kind of warped thinking is this??
I had a student physical therapist once tell me that aborting children with Down's syndrome was the kind thing to do, to end their suffering. I FLIPPED OUT ON HER. I looked that girl directly in the eyes, and was not so professional about saying "That is a lie, and if I ever hear you say that again, you are done with your clinical with me. We work with these kids every day, and if you think they are better off dead then leading their happy, productive lives, you have no business being a pediatric therapist." MURDER IS NOT KIND. Being different is NOT SUFFERING. Allowing people whose bodies are dying to peacefully die? YES. Allow their bodies to die. The Christensens could have allowed their child to die peacefully, held in the arms of her parents, loved and let go. But NO. They chose instead to violently murder her and call it KIND. THIS IS A LIE OF THE GREATEST PROPORTIONS.
Should we take a guillotine to every cancer patient? Is that the kind thing to do?? COME ON PEOPLE. THINK! Find your moral compass! It's been warped and stomped on for so long, but it's there.
Lord have mercy on us.
Today, we will say rosary in reparation for the evil that is abortion.
ADDENDUM:
I just came back to this after pondering for a few minutes. WHAT would possess a family with a "nonviable" infant to abort rather than deliver and let the baby die? That makes no sense at all. But then it hit me like a ton of bricks. They weren't afraid that this child was going to die, merely wanting to spare his or her suffering. If that was the case, they certainly wouldn't have gone through with a late term abortion, which is hideously violent and painful. That family was afraid that their child was going to LIVE. That they would deliver, and he or she WOULDN'T die, but be in the hospital, and require medical care, and maybe survive with disabilities. THAT was what they were afraid of! Because if that baby lived outside the womb, but imperfectly, it (for now) IS against the law to "get rid" of that child. THAT is the unstated fact of that scenario, and those parents weren't willing to admit it. It has to be so, because otherwise their choice makes not one shred of logical sense. The whole thing is so so so chilling to contemplate.
ADDENDUM:
I just came back to this after pondering for a few minutes. WHAT would possess a family with a "nonviable" infant to abort rather than deliver and let the baby die? That makes no sense at all. But then it hit me like a ton of bricks. They weren't afraid that this child was going to die, merely wanting to spare his or her suffering. If that was the case, they certainly wouldn't have gone through with a late term abortion, which is hideously violent and painful. That family was afraid that their child was going to LIVE. That they would deliver, and he or she WOULDN'T die, but be in the hospital, and require medical care, and maybe survive with disabilities. THAT was what they were afraid of! Because if that baby lived outside the womb, but imperfectly, it (for now) IS against the law to "get rid" of that child. THAT is the unstated fact of that scenario, and those parents weren't willing to admit it. It has to be so, because otherwise their choice makes not one shred of logical sense. The whole thing is so so so chilling to contemplate.
No comments:
Post a Comment