Abortion: The Washington Post Gone Mad

Ruth Marcus, a deputy editor of the Washington Post wrote on the 9th March that she would abort a fetus with Down Syndrome and argues that women deserve the right to do so. This is straight out of the book of eugenics that “pro-choicers” believe grants them the divine right to murder babies in the womb.

(“I would’ve aborted a fetus with Down syndome. Women need that right.” 9/3/18, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-wouldve-aborted-a-fetus-with-down-syndrome-women-need-that-right/2018/03/09/3aaac364-23d6-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.42228bd490a6)

Prenatal testing is used to determine if there is a condition the baby has that can be operated on before birth. It should not be an excuse for terminating a baby when it is discovered to have Down Syndrome. Heart and neural conditions are regularly operated on whilst the baby is still in the womb because they have been discovered by prenatal testing. The purpose of fetal surgery is to increase the quality of life for this human being once they are born and to hopefully avoid complications throughout their life.

The Hippocratic Oath, “first, do no harm,” taken by doctors is egregiously flaunted by conducting abortions. This is a barbaric practice right out the school of eugenics. These parents who view a baby’s worth only through the prism of the child’s underdeveloped IQ are immoral and should be ashamed. What value do they place on human life to end it because of a disability? What is the value of human life to them? Why is it that an underdeveloped IQ means that a child does not have the right to life?

If anyone believes that the practice of eugenics is OK I would suggest they study the history of Hitler’s Nazi Germany. Eugenics programs regularly killed the disabled, intellectually impaired and others who were deemed a burden to the Reich.

If history is not your forte or you have no interest in learning the horrors of the 20th century I suggest watching the 1997 film Gattaca, a social commentary on the deficiencies and outright destruction of the middle class through eugenics programs that begins with testing a child’s deficiencies in the womb. Soon enough scientists start creating the perfect baby in the womb that has the best physical condition and intelligence, thereby leading to a race of super humans. Their careers are already planned for them and they become indistinguishable from one another. Alternatively, there is a class of non-enhanced, real people who retain their humanity, defects and all, but become a subservient race of cleaners and menial labourers that are ostracised for their impurities. They are literally a class of untouchables.

Marcus asserts: “You can call me selfish, or worse, but I am in good company.” I am calling you selfish, and your argument of being in good company is purely emotional and replete with lackluster logic. A majority does not provide authenticity or moral certitude. A quick historical note is that the 20th Century was replete with examples of the majority agreeing with barbaric practices. Hitler was democratically elected, many Germans agreed with his rhetoric and actions. Then there is the single biggest failure in terms of the cost of human life: Socialism.

The USSR, China and Cambodian regimes swept to power on popular platforms then between them proceeded to account for the accumulated deaths of 100 million people. Further back in the 19th Century, the majority of the Confederate States supported slavery. A popular policy does not mean it is moral, just or credible.

If primary caregivers are permitted to kill those who are deemed a burden to them then where is the line drawn? This may seem hyperbolic but the notion of a person as a disadvantage and burden to your life is a fundamentally flawed argument. There are many who start out with certain disadvantages and go on to lead extraordinary lives and more importantly, because there are more of these people, regular lives. If it is permissible to kill anyone that is a deemed a burden, then why not reconsider all children for termination? They are both a financial and emotional burden for all families, regardless of their intellectual capacities.

Furthermore, any parent or family member with Alzheimer’s, requiring round the clock care is also a burden, so why not kill them too? Anyone with a physical disability who requires their family’s assistance to conduct their day-to-day business would now be considered a burden that, if the family decide they no can no longer deal with it or be bothered one day, should be allowed to kill them. Should there be a pyramid of burdens that a caregiver has to prove before they can kill those reliant on them?

This is a slippery slope into a dark place that eliminates the value of the individual human life. When we look at human life through the narrow prism of the burdensome and picture the caregiver as a victim then we have only ourselves to blame for a selfish and immoral society that is too willing to forego the values of western civilisation so we can have an easy and irresponsible lifestyle.

The pro-abortion argument that it is a woman’s choice is also flawed. If the fetus is a threat to the mother’s survival then, if there is no alternative, of course the mother’s survival comes first. The baby should be terminated. But the argument “it is my body, therefore my choice” is erroneous and simplistic.

First, the body we are talking about is not yours; it is a separate human being that is reliant on your good health to survive. This is an important distinction conveniently overlooked by pro-choicers.

Second, the idea that no one, especially a man, should tell a woman what to do with her body is an example of the cognitive dissonance that undermines their argument. Why is it that the woman takes responsibility only after the fact, when she becomes pregnant, not before the act of intercourse? The abnegation of responsibility before the woman becomes pregnant is ignored now that she is pregnant and wants to assert her rights. At this point she takes responsibility for the child in her womb and declares it is her choice whether to keep or kill the baby. But, although she was aware of the risks of not using contraception she had unprotected sex anyway.

This glaring hypocrisy is galling. If you do not wish to get pregnant, use contraception, as a responsible person would do. Take responsibility before you get pregnant. Contraception is cheap and easily accessible. The same goes for a man not wanting to impregnate whomever he is sleeping with.

The Washington Post and Ruth Marcus have published an article devoid of intellectual and logical argument that so often clouds the debate on abortion. The reliance of the pro-choicers on emotion is a subconscious admission of defeat against the humanist argument that every baby is a human being deserving of the inalienable right to life, granted by the simple and unquestionable fact of its conception.