Censorship of happy Down syndrome children
The French state tries to hide guilt of aborting disabled babies
The atheistic French state has recently plumbed the depths of despotic censorship in deciding to label a short pro-life film as inappropriate during advertisements, in effect banning it from French television. The film, called Dear Future Mom, was produced for World Down syndrome day in 2014 and shows people with Down syndrome smiling while explaining to and reassuring a worried pregnant mother that they have happy lives.
The film was originally labelled as inappropriate for inclusion in advertisements on television by the Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel (French Broadcasting Council) on 25th June 2014, after which a court appeal was launched to have the label removed. The French court considering the case, the Conseil d’État (Council of State), have now given a ruling1 upholding the label stating again that it was “inappropriate” as it was “likely to disturb the conscience of women who, in accordance with the law, had made different personal life choices.”2
Disturbing the conscience?
Regardless of French or any other nations’ man-made law that has legalized abortion, the reason that it disturbs people’s consciences, is that abortion contradicts God’s law (Exodus 20:13). When confronted by their sin they know that it violates the divine order instituted by God in His creation—the sanctity of life. Seeing the smiles on the faces of those who participated in the film, while looking into their eyes, only serves to re-inforce their undeniable evident humanity. A humanity that all too many have slaughtered in their wombs just because they may have Down syndrome.
That full humanity was recognized in a response to the decision by the Global Alliance for Disability in Media and Entertainment who stated, “The discriminatory ban of the video sends the message that people with Down syndrome are unwelcome in society and has impacted the Down syndrome community around the world who have seen it as a rejection of the effort to challenge negative stereotypes and societal prejudices and to assert the equal and inherent value of the lives of people with Down syndrome.”3 In a western world which espouses a hedonistic self-serving evolutionary philosophy even the language of equality, a potent force nowadays, has largely fallen on deaf ears. Why? Because it tries to speak to people who do not have a Biblically based understanding of the true equality given to humanity by God in their creation—all being image bearers of God (Genesis 1:27).
Not image bearers = Not truly equal
The reality is that abortion only happens when a woman is pregnant. What does being pregnant actually mean? – having a child developing in the body. Whether that child has a disability such as Down syndrome, or not, it is still a child in the womb, not just a group of cells, or some evolutionary recapitulation, but a real and genetically distinct person. So abortion very simply is the destruction of that child, another person, in the womb.
Speaking about women in the U.K., Kerry Able, Chair of Abortion Rights, admitted that, “More than 50% of women who have abortions now already have a child, so they know exactly what they are doing.”4 That admission should be quite startling, but because the child in the womb is no longer seen as an image bearer, which gives us all the same intrinsic value, their humanity is not seen as equal to the woman’s whose ‘rights and equality’ trump those of the child’s in their womb. As anyone who has studied history will observe when one group of people assert a higher value upon themselves than another group it does not end up well for those people. In this case, it is the unborn who are suffering their silent genocide—with more than 300 million aborted worldwide in the past 40 years. In countries where abortion is not on demand, and equality in some form is still present, there are actually vile people who shout and hold up placards demanding the murder of the young in the womb right up to their birth. It’s interesting how those same people would not advocate their own violent murder if somebody else felt it was their right, showing the total inconsistency in their principles.
France didn’t stop there
France, in their continuing onslaught of censorship to stop people from telling the truth about the horrors and reality of abortion, in December 2016 passed a bill which could ban pro-life websites. The “Digital Interference” Bill, which was approved by the French Senate by 173-126 votes, after just one day of debate, seeks to make illegal websites which ”deliberately mislead, intimidate and/or exert psychological or moral pressure to discourage recourse to abortion.” Evidently, “mislead” is code language for “tell the truth about the humanity of the unborn”. If the bill becomes law, then people who violate it would face up to two years in prison and €30,000 in fines.5
Censoring the film won’t stop God’s judgment
It’s sometimes hard to believe that not only is there a real viable conversation actually being held about doctors murdering babies in their mother’s wombs, yet it is actually happening thousands of times over every day in countries all around the world. Massacring God’s image is a very real rebellion against the creator God.
The labelling and effective ban of this film in France is akin to putting people with Down syndrome behind closed doors because their presence confronts society with the reality of their systematic eradication through abortion.6 Rather than being labelled as inappropriate, this loving, educational and informative film is the kind that expectant mothers of a Down syndrome child need to see.
There is a higher law decreed by God than those made by man, and breaching that higher law will disturb the conscience of those who do so. Banning the film may try to make those who have murdered their child ‘legally’ feel less guilty, but they stand no less guilty before God. The good news though is that forgiveness and healing from the sin of abortion can be found in the person of Jesus Christ. France like many other nations has rejected its Christian heritage along with an understanding of Biblical History. This rejection opens the way for such radically warped thinking. Only by the salvation and freedom found in the Gospel, leading to the restoration of an understanding of Biblical history, can the problem of abortion truly be dealt with.
Forgiveness and peace found in Jesus
The Bible is clear, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), but the good news is that it goes on to say that, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). While an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy can be a stressful situation for a mother (and father), abortion is not the ‘easy way out’ and those involved in the abortion of the child can suffer for years afterwards with guilt, feelings of unworthiness and even self-harm. The sin of abortion can only be dealt with through the person of Jesus Christ, and with his forgiveness comes healing. If you are struggling with this issue we would encourage you to seek Christian counselling services on this matter.
References and notes
- Conseil d'État, Ariane Web: Conseil d'État 384691, lecture du 10 novembre 2016, ECLI:FR:CECHR:2016:384691.20161110, conseil-etat.fr, 10 November 2016. Return to text.
- Ref. 1. Conclusion 10. Translation based on Google Translate from “susceptible de troubler en conscience des femmes qui, dans le respect de la loi, avaient fait des choix de vie personnelle différents”. Return to text.
- The Global Alliance for Disability in Media and Entertainment, FRANCE - END DISCRIMINATORY BAN ON DOWN SYNDROME AWARENESS VIDEO, change.org, November 2016. Return to text.
- Kerry Abel, Chair of Abortion Rights, speaking on Sky News, 20 November 2016. Return to text.
- Christian Concern, Pro-life voices silenced in France and Scotland, christianconcern.com, 9 December 2016. Return to text.
- Lindeman, R., C_E_N_S_O_R_E_D: video “Dear Future Mom”, huffingtonpost.com, 18 November 2016. Return to text.
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.