"A mother who decided to abort her son because he may have inherited a life-threatening kidney condition is overjoyed that he survived the procedure.
Jodie Percival of Nottinghamshire, England, said she and her fiancee made the decision to abort baby Finley when she was eight weeks pregnant.
Percival's first son Thane died of multicystic dysplastic kidneys — which causes cysts to grow on the kidneys of an unborn baby — and her second child Lewis was born with serious kidney damage and currently has just one kidney, the Daily Mail reported..."
The baby was born normal! This has got to be a blow to the people who advocate abortion for reasons of "medical necessity." How many babies have been unnecessarily killed over the last thirty years? Coupled with the point from Nordlinger's Column on NRO located below, we may finally see an end to infanticide soon.
Few weeks ago, Ron Liddle had an interesting article in The Spectator. (Here, but a subscription is required.) It was titled, “A Century From Now, We Will All Be Appalled That We Allowed Abortions At All.”An excerpt:
As a leftie, I had always been persuaded that abortion on demand is the right of every woman, with no arguments brooked. ‘Persuaded’ is perhaps the wrong word; the rights of a woman to do whatever the hell she liked with her foetus was simply not something open to negotiation or debate with someone in possession of a penis, even if it was quite a small penis like mine. [Good grief: Ron Liddle = Ron Little?] But a dark foreboding nonetheless gnawed away at me — much as, on a personal level, it gnawed away at many of the feminists who advanced this totalitarian no-surrender hypothesis. It is still, if you are on the feminist Left, an unchallengeable shibboleth, which is why the debate today is so fraught — the god-botherers on one side, the liberal Left on the other.
I may be wrong about this, but it strikes me that in a century or so, or maybe even less, we will be appalled that we allowed abortions at all. I do not mean that we should not allow them now; it is merely a suspicion that the advance of our knowledge about the life of a foetus, coupled with an improved ability to prevent conception, will mean that we will be mystified as to how such a primitive and brutal procedure could have become state-sanctioned and commonplace. I can see politicians in 2108 erecting monuments and offering apologies to the unborn dead — divorced from the reality of where we are now, and why.
This is definately something to keep an eye on folks.
7 comments:
yes but what of thoes who not only is the baby in danger but the mother? what of the situations where not only is the childs life in danger but many others. now although i am pro choice for historical reasons i still believe that even if it does become illegal what of thoes lives? sure you believeing your saveing one but then you loose two. not to mention the fact that if it becomes illegal many women would be willing to do the procedure illegally therefore even more unsafe for both the child and the mother.
Jill,
Rape, incest and threatening the life of a mother account for less than 2% of abortions in this country. And if it becomes illegal maybe it would make women think twice before hopping into bed. The "back-alley" abortions theroy is vastly overstated.
Jill -
A pregnancy can only endanger the mother and the child... not "many others"
I would respond in a way that may provoke debate, but then I realized who I'd be "debating" with.
But I didn't understand what you meant by "medical necessity." For the mother? Or are you talking about abortion as a means of eugenics (which I disagree with)?
Amelia,
Thats cold...
i dont think you guys caught the little comment in there that stated my reasons as to why i am pro choice, historicaly it needs to be legal. it was stated in the senacca falls convetion, in the list that stated all womens rights, that the abilty for a woman to be in controll of her own body and in that includes being able to have abortion. i was simply stateing on that specific story, it is not the same for all for many there is no point in the mother going through all the months just to go into a depression from looseing a baby. and i meant in medical nessicity as in if the mother had cancer or if the women being pregant and the baby would die. now i know these are rare cases and many belive its a different story but again i was just commenting on the story.
Sorry, TGA, my comment was directed at the post's author only. He should know why.
Should have made that clearer.
Post a Comment