A ‘wrongful birth’?
Thanks to Janine Suter
4D ultrasound image of human baby in the womb, taken at 20 weeks.
A Florida court case highlights America’s heightened devaluing of human life
by Lita Cosner
A Florida family was recently awarded $21 million because of an alleged misdiagnosis of
their first son’s birth defects which caused them to have a second son with
similar defects. The boys both have
Smith Lemli Opitz Syndrome, which makes them unable to produce or
synthesize cholesterol. A doctor told them after the birth of their firstborn that
they should be able to have healthy children in the future; the couple claims that
had they known better, they would have had a test to see if their younger son had
the same defect, and would have aborted him.
Though a jury has awarded them $21 million, since the doctor works for a state university,
the legislature will have to be convinced to award most of the money, since state
law limits claims against government agencies at $200,000. Christian Searcy, one
of the couple’s attorneys, is quoted as saying:
‘I believe that this case is so powerful and this tragedy was so preventable
and is so poignant, that it is the kind of case that should rise above the fray
and rise above party politics.’
The tragedy here, however, is not that the poor child was born, but that his life
is thought to be ‘worthless’ just because he is severely disabled. One
hopes that he and his brother do not know that their parents would have aborted
them if they had known about their condition.
The absurdity of this case is easily shown. With most cases, there is some attempt
at a legal remedy that rights the wrong. So to be consistent, the remedy
should include righting this ‘wrong’ of being alive, by killing the
boys! This is a reductio
ad absurdum to the nonsensical idea that there is a great ‘wrong’
to be born alive.
Clash of worldviews
To be consistent, the remedy should include righting this ‘wrong’ of
being alive, by killing the boys! This is a reductio ad absurdum to the nonsensical
idea that there is a great ‘wrong’ to be born alive.
In a biblical worldview, all innocent1
human life is sacred, not just when that life happens to be useful or healthy, because
unlike any other creature, we are
made in God’s image, which gives us inherent value apart from any
good we can do for society. Conversely, in an evolutionary worldview, the goal of
life is for the strongest and most ‘fit’ to pass on their genes. The
weak are seen to be consuming resources with no chance of benefiting the group,
so eliminating them from the picture is the logical step.
In
Nazi Germany and in some parts of the US in the early 20th
century, this couple could have been subjected to mandatory sterilization to ensure
they did not ‘pollute’ the population with more disabled children (see
also America’s evolutionists:
Hitler’s inspiration? (Review of War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s
Campaign to Create a Master Race by Edwin Black) and
The Darwinian roots of the Nazi tree (review of From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary
Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany by Richard Weikart).
There have been other stories recently that have featured severely disabled children.
Early in 2007, the
Ashley Treatment came to light. In this case, the parents
of severely-disabled Ashley had her undergo surgery to remove her uterus and breast
buds to keep her from developing normally, and giving her hormone treatments to
stunt her growth, keeping her child-size (see the parents’ blog about Ashley
here) . While an ‘ethics’ panel approved the procedure,
claiming it would enable her parents to continue to care for her, giving her the
best possible quality of life, other doctors called the treatment ‘disfiguring’
and strongly disapproved of the procedure. There seems little difference between
that and the forced sterilization of over 60,000 US citizens before WW2.
The only difference between aborting a child because of deformities and the Nazis’
‘mercy killings’ is that the former takes place inside the womb.
Wesley Smith’s book
The Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America
(2001) has documented how many so-called ‘ethics’ panels are appointed
to oppose the sanctity-of-life ethic and replace it with a utilitarian moral relativism.
The only difference between aborting a child because of deformities and the Nazis’
‘mercy killings’ is that the former takes place inside the womb (see
also Antidote to abortion arguments
and Abortion: an
indispensable right or violence against women?). But there are neo-Nazi–like
ideas, such as those promoted by atheistic evolutionist
Peter Singer, that would allow infanticide for babies that don’t meet
his standard for perfection. Thankfully these two boys escaped that fate.
Related articles
Addendum: feedback on this article
Kara H. from Canada writes:
In response to the article ‘a wrongful birth’, I would just like to comment on my own experience. Twelve years ago we were expecting our first baby; within the first trimester I had become infected with rubella. The obstetrician had suggested that we terminate the pregnancy because I was highly infected. I told him that God is the giver and taker of life. He then asked us to sign a waiver to insure that we would not sue IF there were any deformities. We signed it on the premise that we would not sue anyway.
Our daughter was born perfectly healthy and is a great JOY to our lives. I thank the Lord for his graciousness to us. Just think of all the aborted children healthy or not that would have brought JOY to their parents lives if they only understood the Love of God for themselves.
Related resources
References
- Here I am using the word ‘innocent’ in the original
sense of the Latin in nocens = ‘not harming’, i.e. not guilty of a capital
crime—not in the sense of sinless. Return to Text.
Published: 16 November 2007(GMT+10)
|
