Something disturbing has been happening in relation to abortion law. It's been around for a few years now but I haven't seen any specific, substantial response to the chilling phenomenon of "wrongful life" lawsuits. In these lawsuits which turn the classic "wrongful death" cases around and seek, among other monetary awards, "punitive damages for having to live with a disabled child".
Can you imagine saying that to your child? Not in the heat of frustration and anger, but in cold clinical language in a courtroom. These suits are ostensibly filed on behalf of the child, claiming an early death by abortion would have been preferable to a life that is less than perfect.
Tragically, these kinds of lawsuits have become commonplace in Israel where they should be a little bit more leery of a Lebensunwertes Leben legal philosophy. Read the article by Dr. Denise Hunnell here.
On a related note, Rape Exception is one of those nonsensical devices used by politicians and others who don't have the courage to follow through on the defense of antenatal life. Sara Johnson asks the question I've been asking for what seems ages, Why Do We Kill Babies Instead of Rapists?
Aren't the sequelae of postmodern thinking grand?
6 comments:
Re: Why Do We Kill Babies... I'm a bit lost on one paragraph that reads: The mother is a patient of a particular doctor. It is that doctor’s job to be an advocate for their patient. I have the same opinion in the case of a young child who is a victim; if delivering a baby is going to do irreparable physical harm to that child, no I don’t think they should be forced to have it. They should be well aware of what that means, but it is that doctor’s job to ‘first do no harm.’
Eek. Forgot the rest of the comment. This is a good article but a rather different approach than I've yet seen. It just seems to me that "no exceptions" should mean just that. Every effort should be made to save both lives and no one should be forced to sacrifice one life for another. If this is correct, then is the "life of the mother" exception a valid one, assuming it is applied correctly (i.e. the mom has a very real, non-imaginary, chance of dying)?
Cathy,
I am a bit confused by that paragraph as well.
If it is a genuine case of "your baby or your life" then I think the decision must reside with the parents, particularly with the pregnant mother. But those cases aren't nearly as common as some would have us think.
I think it's legitimate to look at such cases as a medical dilemma, not an abortion exception. It's similar to having enough time to rescue one person in the burning building - you would never, ever stand back and say, "I can't save both, so I'll not save either." In cases where it is *genuinely* a question of the mother living or dying, if you let the mother die because you won't do an abortion, then the baby will die as well. If the baby is more developed, you can deliver early and by that means attempt to save both.
Kamilla
Thanks, Kamilla. As a vehemently pro-life Christian who has had several children this is certainly an issue I've thought long over. The burning building analogy raises a fair point that I hadn't considered.
...is this a serious question?
"Sara Johnson asks the question I've been asking for what seems ages, Why Do We Kill Babies Instead of Rapists?"
Might it be, oh I don't know, because killing the rapist wouldn't benefit the rape victim in any way? Just maybe?
You might want to read this before you answer the other part of the question:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/02/transvaginal_ultrasounds_why_pro_choice_advocates_shouldn_t_call_them_rape_.html
Post a Comment