You remember how pro-lifers were laughed at for saying abortion and infanticide were one in the same. Pro-aborts said we were crazy and that killing “blobs of tissue” in the womb had nothing to do with killing babies outside the womb.
But it seems that you can’t go even a few days anymore without hearing someone advocate killing babies outside the womb now. And what seemed like lunacy just a decade ago has been mainstreamed. But this only shows what we’ve always known. Abortion ain’t a slippery slope. It’s a sheer face of a cliff. As soon as you step over the edge there’s no way to avoid hitting bottom. Get ready for the thud.
Weasel Zippers reports:
Babies born after just 23 weeks of pregnancy or earlier should be left to die, a leading NHS official has said.
Dr Daphne Austin said that despite millions being spent on specialised treatments, very few of these children survive as their tiny bodies are too underdeveloped.
She claimed keeping them alive is only ‘prolonging their agony’, and it would be better to invest the money in care for cancer sufferers or the disabled.
Dr Austin, who advises local health trusts how to spend their budgets, said doctors were ‘doing more harm than good by resuscitating 23-weekers’ and that treatments have ‘very marginal benefit’.
The NHS spends around £10million a year resuscitating babies born this early and keeping them alive on incubators and ventilators.
But despite round-the-clock care from teams of experienced doctors and nurses, just 9 per cent leave hospital — the rest die. And only one in 100 grows up without some form of disability. The most common include blindness, deafness and cerebral palsy.
Guidelines state that doctors should not try to resuscitate babies born under 22 weeks, as they are too underdeveloped, but those born between 22 and 25 weeks should routinely be given intensive care.
After advice from doctors, parents should have the final say on what attempts should be made to keep them alive. Almost all are resuscitated as families cling to the hope that they will pull through against the odds.
The legal limit for abortion is 24 weeks. Dr Austin said that the care given to such tiny infants should be weighed up in the same way as the NHS decides whether or not to fund treatment for dying cancer patients.
‘If it was my child, from all the evidence and information that I know, I would not resuscitate,’ she said.
Is that the most horrific thing you’ve read in a few weeks? Just wait. I’m sure in a few weeks someone else in authority will say or do something equally if not more offensive. It’s the logical conclusion.
Here’s the thing. You either see human beings as sacred or you don’t. If you don’t, other people’s humanity can be subverted as less important than things like money, power, or lifestyle.
You talk about culture wars. The divide in Western civilization isn’t between rich and poor, red vs. blue, or the uneducated vs. the educated. It’s God. God is the dividing line. You either believe God loves each of us and grants us inalienable rights or you believe that everything is negotiable including life.
If you take part in justifying killing humans to save $100 billion or $10 million you’re still a killer. The rest is just haggling.
March 8, 2011 at 1:45 am
Isn't there some movie villain or other that justifies their murders by saying they're just cutting short the pain of living?
March 8, 2011 at 3:25 pm
What if we frame the issue from the perspective of prolonging life using extra-ordinary means? While it is immoral to kill deliberately, is there a mandate to prolong life using extra-ordinary means? If my kids allow me to die naturally instead of putting me in artificial life support because of the torture brought by an advanced case of CA, will they be at fault or will they be doing the merciful, ethical, moral and godly thing?
March 8, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Rick-
please don't change the subject before this one is settled, especially not to a subject that's been settled a long time ago.
The article is talking about banning all treatment or medical aid of small children because of their estimated age and the average results of current procedure; it has nothing to do with extraordinary care.
March 8, 2011 at 3:37 pm
*grumble, grumble*
… a subject that's been settled a long time ago…
*goes for more coffee*
March 14, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Imagine the amount of money it takes to save one premature child with a 10% chance to live via extraordinary means.
Now imagine how much money it would take to give food, water, and medicine to a fully developed child, healthy in every way other than that they are hungry and lacking in basic immunizations: Means that I think we can all agree are ordinary.
How many other children would you have to deny basic but critical care to in order to have a long shot at saving one baby?
That's what we're talking about here. If we had plentiful public coffers, sure, nobody on either side of the aisle would deny it would be great to spare no expense saving every single possible life. But we don't. Cut public taxes, cut public benefits: Cause, meet effect.
March 14, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Hey, look, it's the abortion-is-wonderful argument with a new paint job!