The logical consequence of aborting those with Down Syndrome

See Portland-area couple sues Legacy Health for $3 million for ‘wrongful birth’ after child born with Down syndrome for a clear example of where pro-choice logic will lead you.  If it is legal to kill human beings with Down Syndrome in the womb — and even a virtue, if you follow the logic of the Left and people like former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders — then why wouldn’t parents be able to sue if a prenatal test failed?

Isn’t it ironic that the “dear child, I really, really wish I would have had you killed in the womb” folks and their ideological partners are the ones who claim the mantle of compassion?

Good news for these moral freaks: If you follow the logic of “ethicists” then the reasons to kill the Down Syndrome child in the womb are just as valid once she is outside it.  So why not just commit infanticide?

I really hope that stories like this make pro-choicers reconsider where their views lead.

9 thoughts on “The logical consequence of aborting those with Down Syndrome”

  1. Hi, I think that the law must be regarded as different from ethics. If parents are told the wrong information regarding the interpretation of a prenatal test, then they might have legal grounds on which to launch an action. If they are successful, and are awarded damages, this might not prima facie be an unethical consequence. It might mean that they would have sufficient money to look after a child who has problems, (and who may outlive them, so provisions need to be made), and such a result could lead to greater accuracy in the manufacturing and interpretation of such tests. Many prenatal diagnoses can lead to therapeutic intervention within the womb, not abortions, so we do want greater accuracy, I think.


  2. Arizona is trying to pass a law protecting doctors from wrongful birth suits. I had to research it (because it sounded insane). Turns out these suits have been going on since 1975. A doctor can be sued for medical malpractice if he fails to give the birth mother information she might have used to abort the baby. “She never told me it was a girl! I would aborted a girl! I’m gonna sue!” It has come to this.


  3. I am a frequent viewer of The Military Channel, one of the battery of cable & satellite channels owned by Discovery.

    MilChan frequently runs documentaries about World War II in general, and about the many crimes against humanity in particular that were committed by the Nazis. I do not just mean the Holocaust; watching these archives of grainy footage shot back in the 30s and 40s (along with the narration and interview accounts of people who were there and still alive at the time the documentaries was made) has helped me more fully appreciate the true extent of what horrible and despicable people the Nazis really were.

    One documentary I watched this evening, detailed how Heinrich Himmler (head of the infamous SS) set about building an entire religion in Germany based around Hitler, which incorporated elements of the old pagan and Norse mythologies, as existed in northern Europe prior to the arrival of Christian missionaries hundreds of years ago. As you can imagine, this neo-paganism was infused with doctrines about racial purity.

    One other important doctrine of this hateful SS ideology was that even the children must be not only “racially pure,” but also free of “defects.” It seems that the Nazi doctors had a free hand to secretly give a lethal injection to any baby or toddler which was either born with a mental/physical disability of some kind, or was deemed to be not recovering quickly enough from some disease, even tuberculosis. The parents of these children would then be told their child had died of natural causes. To drive home the point, the TV screen showed me a row of German children, lying dead in coffins after these “doctors” had had their way with them.

    It is frightening to consider than any government in modern times would presume the moral authority to euthanize children that it considers “defective,” as you or I would put down a dog or cat that was thought to be suffering from incurable diseases. I am sure a lot of people are telling themselves right now that “it can’t happen here,” except that it took Sarah Palin to point out that the new ObamaCare law more or less gives our government the power to do exactly that…at least to individuals at the other end of their lives. But I do not like the idea of government telling me that my parent or grandparent isn’t fit to live, either.

    I considered for a moment how I’d feel about some employee of a federal government agency deciding that his facility had the right to execute my toddler-aged daughter based on some arbitrary definition of “defective.” Never mind that A) some disabilities and diseases do go away or become manageable with time and medical care or B) that many kids with these problems have grown up, overcome the odds, and led productive lives.

    Whatever happened to the idea that only God is wise enough to make decisions like this?


    1. Excellent points, Matt. With the controls people are happily giving to the government, we are a step away from death panels, limits on the number of children (“abort or insurance won’t cover the birth or any costs for the child””) and more.


Leave a Reply to Pastor Timothy Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s