It’s a Wrongful Life?

Kudos & props to Justine for sending these little Yuletide tidbits my way courtesy of Facebook.

First off, a story about a Belgian court that decided that a doctor should be held financially liable for failing to properly diagnose an unborn baby’s severe disabilities, thus depriving the parents of the obvious choice to abort the child without any feelings of guilt.  The judgment effectively argues that death is preferable to life in certain cases, and if doctors don’t adequately inform parents of facts that will help lead them to make the decision to end the child’s life prematurely, the doctor can be held liable.  
As cited by this article, the court stated that the legalization of abortion “must have intended to help avoid giving birth to children with serious abnormalities, having regard not only for the interests of the mother but also for those of the unborn child.”  In other words, in allowing this child to be born with disabilities, the doctor effectively violated the child’s right to be killed before she could be born.  Death is legally preferable to life and defensible as such in a court of law.  
If it strikes you as odd that an unborn child has the right to death, but does not have a corresponding right to life, you’re right, that’s odd.  The judgment seems to specifically reference the unborn baby’s right to die without asserting a greater right to life.  If someone has a right to choose death, it would seem incumbent upon the courts to protect that person’s rights until their choice on the matter has been made clear.  Certainly anyone who has the right to choose death already has the inherent right to life, right?  
Then again, that’s pretty inconvenient to everyone concerned, since that could take a while, and in some cases, the person might never be able to convincingly or effectively communicate that their earnest desire is to die.  Much better to assume that they want to die and then kill them off without even asking them.  
I don’t know about you, but that assumption makes me rather nervous, given our American penchant for aping our European cousins.
On a related note, if you’re looking for last minute Christmas gifts, why not consider the amazingly tacky and thoughtless Planned Parenthood seasonal theme of “Choice on Earth“?  That’s right – for the person who has everything, you can give them the gift of a possible abortion by purchasing a gift card from Planned Parenthood.  As this editorial rightly notes, Planned Parenthood’s campaign thus borrows a Scriptural reference (“Peace on Earth”), a reference associated with a birth (it was the angel’s announcement to the shepherds as part of telling them about the birth of Jesus – Luke 2:14) in order to sell potential abortions to people.  
I can only imagine the outrage of Planned Parenthood took a phrase from the Q’uran or the Tanakh and subverted it’s meaning completely so that it proclaimed the actual opposite of the original text.  Can you imagine the indignation and outrage?  Can you imagine the celebrities and pundits lined up to demand Planned Parenthood undo this offensive and intolerant abuse of a sacred text?
I certainly can imagine it.  Which makes it doubly painful and sobering that there doesn’t appear to be any such outcry over this trampling of a Biblical text.  
Who loves ya, baby ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s