I read a report this morning about the way we are
choosing to eliminate Down’s Syndrome through abortion of fetuses diagnosed
with the genetic malformation. In looking
for accurate information it seems difficult to find exact numbers, but from what
I’ve read somewhere between 85 and 95% of the parents who are informed of the
diagnosis are offered and encouraged to take the option of abortion.
Those who favor this course of action speak to the
elimination of Down’s Syndrome children as a benefit to society, a public
health issue if you will, but is it, or is the damage to our society greater
than the supposed benefit? When life
becomes disposable because there will be a struggle in that life we should ask
ourselves why should any life matter?
If we are concerned about discrimination of a group of
people, why not just eliminate that group entirely? Come to think of it as we look at the abortion
rates for African-Americans, when compared to European-Americans, it would sure
look like that is the goal of those who advocate for abortion on demand. It would certainly be in keeping with the
beliefs of one of their idols, Margaret Sanger who began the “Negro-Project[i]”
whose scope and impact has been a subject of much controversy. Perhaps it is a personal bias, but I am not
surprised that New York University would find a slightly alternative role for
Ms. Sanger[ii],
claiming the genocide we’ve seen was never her intent and the program was
pulled away from her once funding was secured.
We have seen a hundred reasons why abortion is a woman’s
right, but what about the state? If we
find we can eliminate a genetic issue through the encouragement of abortion,
why not some other troublesome issue like blond hair and blue eyes, or
homosexuality? Right now, we don’t
encourage abortion based on gender, but why not?
No comments:
Post a Comment