Interesting thread on selecting Down Syndrome children for abortions here. Friend and occasional commenter Crystal has an insistent presence in the commentariat there. What do you think of her assessment here:
… given the ferocity of the pro-life movement, abortions will almost never be done now by hospitals or doctor’s offices or other clinics … (Planned Parenthood) is what we have left and we have the pro-life movement to thank for that.
I’ve heard Planned Parenthood does under 10% of women’s health services in this country but receives nearly all of the federal funding allocated for it. I hear the cry to defund, but no specifics on reassigning the $$ for women and the unborn. So the defund would seem to include people who want to save a buck or two. Economics, not morality, then. Right?
The young miss, as attentive readers know, was born with a serious genetic birth defect. She would not have lived for more than a few months without significant medical attention. I can see that parents might react with jitters and much worse when confronted with news of a child who might live a limited life with significant suffering. What should the consequences of abortion be in such a case? Prison time? The Max solution: blame God? What are the consequences for the supporting extended family and faith community?
In an ideal world, even the infants with the most severe conditions or illnesses would find ready support. But the world is far from ideal, isn’t it? The political pro-life movement suffers from the same defect, it would seem.
Making a decision to abort a child is largely legal, and totally beyond the control of even the most fervid activists. On the other hand, millions of the world’s children suffer diseases, languish in orphanages, and face lives of abject poverty. And they weren’t aborted. How much attention do they deserve? Is it worth fifty, ten, or one percent of the political pro-life energy, resources, picket-walking, and such?