DISCLAIMER: I have great sympathy for parents who find themselves with an unexpected child at a rough time, or a child who may have "birth defects," though neither has ever happened to us. We had our last child when I was about 43; we knew that the statistical chances for "issues" mount with each year, so we discussed it. It was a fairly short discussion. If God wanted us to have a child with issues, the odds were 100% that we would; if He didn't, they would be 100% that we wouldn't. Either way, you just do not kill a child for being imperfect. So when we were offered the opportunity for testing, we asked for clarification as to the intent, and declined.
So I sympathize with parents in that state. I also sympathize with parents who have difficult children (-- although, of course, all mine were perfectly-behaved angels from their first breath on, just as surely as I've always been a perfect father).
I do not, however, sympathize with the decision to kill such children, nor with the rationalizations with which such decisions are whitewashed. So, having said that....
COMMENT: I have often remarked that I have never yet read a pro-abort who can make a coherent, rational, factual, moral case for killing children because they are imperfect or inconvenient, or because they have a bad parent.
This essay brings the total up to zero.
It offers some of the most excruciating... well, I hesitate to elevate it to the level of calling it "thinking." I suppose "rationalizing" would be better, though the element "rational" isn't merited. The woman is explaining why it was a good thing for her and her husband to contract the killing of their daughter because she might be a little imperfect.
It starts out like this:
A tear creeps down my cheek when she says it's a girl. I don't know why that makes me cry.Um... because you're about to kill her, and you still have some shred of conscience? Just a guess.
I'd really rather not know. She assumes that like most expectant parents we want to know.Well no, thank God, that's true. You're actually going to get your daughter killed. Most expectant parents don't do that.
But as its turning out, we aren't like most expectant parents.
And I can probably tell you why you don't want to know her sex, Ma'am: because of this pesky imago Dei thing, killers have always found it easier to dehumanize their victims. Ask racist lynchers. Ask Nazi guards. It's really not new. You're part of a time-honored tradition amongs oppressors with blood on their hands.
The rest of the essay is no more uplifting. Take this absolute beauty. It's a real window to the couple's thinking:
In many ways my 45-year-old husband and I could be perfect parents. We're professionals, with university degrees, own our own house, it's even paid off (we're financially careful yuppies). We're also fit -- we do Ironman events, marathons, play golf, travel and help support my parents.Well, heck, whose definition of "perfect parents" doesn't that fit? They've got careers, money, physical fitness -- and hobbies! My gosh, what else is there to being a "perfect parent"?
Well, there is that pesky little you-don't-kill-your-kids-for-being-imperfect bone that got left out of their heads. Some people might think that that is an important attribute.
But, hey! Ironman! How cool is that?
So these "perfect parents" were initially happy to find that they were expecting. But then they learned that a "dreaded extra chromosome -- a triple X -- has robbed us of a healthy baby." Little Brittany might not be an honor student, so she must die. My understanding is that this is not even necessarily the case. But the fact that it might be the case, in this perfect mother's view (Ironman!), demands a death-warrant.
She still is working hard to quiet her conscience. Listen to this: "Isn't it more cruel to bring a child burdened with so many disadvantages into the world?" Well, I don't know. Why not ask your daughter? Oh, wait....
Here's the same thing that comes up with every such line of thought: if this is a rationale for killing an unborn person, it is equally a rationale for killing a born. If a less-than-100% quality of life is a death-sentence one side of the cervix, it equally is such for the other. A few inches don't make that much of a difference, not rationally.
And the mom's concerned about "disadvantages"? How many "disadvantaged" children have gone far in life, due largely to the commitment and undying love of committed parents? Seems to me right now that this poor girl has only one real, big, insurmountable "disadvantage": a selfish, immature, morally-clueless mother. And while it may be a condemning "disadvantage," it isn't the child on whom the guilt falls.
But she cried about it, we read; so that means she's a decent person. Her religious, pro-life mother would forgive her... she thinks. But she's not going to tell her and find out. Hmm; maybe Mom wouldn't be so sanguine about her granddaughter being killed after all....
The lady does have regrets and blame, though.
But not for herself!
No, here's who she's really mad at:
Why can't we just go to the nearest hospital? I hate the sanctimonious people who have made this more difficult than it has to be. No one begrudges couples thwarting God's plan by spending tens of thousands of dollars on fertility drugs, in vitro treatments, donor eggs, sperm, and surrogate mothers -- they get sympathy. But if you don't want to keep a seriously flawed baby, you bundle your pain in guilt and shame.Wow. Where to start? It's just awful that people stand between her baby and its killer. It's just awful that they make the killing inconvenient.
But note what she says: "...if you don't want to keep a seriously flawed baby...."
Yes, Ma'am. That's right. She was a baby. But because she wasn't perfect (like you and Mr. Ironman), she had to die.
The final words of the essay:
His work sends flowers to me: his wife who had a miscarriage.It was the right decision. It was the right decision. It was the right decision. It was the right decision.
That's what we tell our friends and parents as well.
But... let's just lie to Mom, Dad, and our friends, 'kay?
But it was the right decision. Just keep saying that. It was the right decision.
When we sin, we all have basically two options: forgiveness, or not. If you're saying it's not a sin, it can't be forgiven. Only sins can be forgiven, and they can only be forgiven through and because of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:38-39).
Rationalization kills. In this case, it is killing more than one.