Sunday, August 03, 2008

It's not about a "woman's right to control her own body"

For years, feminists have been clamouring that the right to abortion is the right to control her own body.

This story from India underscores that this is not the case.

In India, abortions are illegal after 24 weeks. A woman who is 25 weeks pregnant is seeking a court order to let her kill her unborn child. Why? Because the baby would need a pacemaker.

All kinds of groups have offered help. There was an offer of a free pacemaker. Another pro-life group offered to place the baby in a home for children with congenital heart defects. In another article, I'd read that the Bishop of Mumbai has offered to take in the baby and have the Sisters of Charity--- Mother Teresa's nuns-- raise the child.

Is that enough?


They said:

"We don't want the baby.(...)"We got a call from an NGO offering to place the baby elsewhere. But how can we? Hum apna dukh doosro ke saath kaise baate? (How can we share our sadness with someone else?) Even if they have the money to look after the baby, the child will always be compared with other normal children."

The right to abortion is about the right to escape parental responsibility. This lady was perfectly willing to carry this baby to term...until she found out he was imperfect.

And oh how unselfish of them...they don't want to "share their sadness" with other people.

Funny, they're not too concerned about the baby's sadness at being killed, are they?

And ALL kids are compared. It doesn't matter whether you're normal or not. How does a handicap justify killing someone?

Just because they compare unfavourably on some points doesn't mean the child will be entirely without skills, strengths or positive points.

The child would be at a disadvantage right from the start. How can the child travel? By train? We have thought it over a lot in the past few weeks. How can a mother and father watch their own child die, whether it is with us or anyone else?

So, let the kid be killed while he is out of sight in the womb. Nice. They don't want to watch the kid die, but they're perfectly okay with him being killed.

This couple is trying to deal with their pain by killing their child. They don't care about the child's pain, the child's existence. They care about their own pain. If they stopped to think rationally about this, they can't justify killing a baby for simply needing a pacemaker.

It seems cruel to condemn an act when a couple is confronted with such a painful situation. But this deference to "pain" will only let evil to proliferate. This baby is going to lose his life because of this "pain".

The worst part is that abortion only causes more pain. The mother will feel guilt about having killed her baby. No doubt about it. If they have other children, they will suffer mental repercussions, too.

And what do feminists have to say about cases like this: if babies have to die-- tough sh*t, it's none of your business! They don't matter. The only one who matters is the woman and her pain.

The baby's pain? That's the price for women's empowerment.

That's feminist supremacy folks.

For more social conservative news check out