In a recent Washington Post column, Ruth Marcus defended the right to kill a child in the womb if it has been diagnosed with Down Syndrome. She was responding to recent laws or proposals to ban the practice in various states.
In so doing, she highlights the moral depravity of the pro-choice position. At one point she argues that if a woman can abort a baby for any reason at all, why can’t she if the child is diagnosed with Down Syndrome?
Good question! Why indeed? What’s really the difference between a woman choosing to abort because she’s too uncertain about her future and a woman who feels her future has suddenly become uncertain because of a difficult diagnosis?
Leaving aside how repugnant this sort of thinking must be to parents of Down Syndrome children, who have made the brave decision to welcome such a child with all of the attendant challenges, Ms. Marcus’ quandary highlights the absolute subjectivism of this issue.
On one hand, if the child isn’t wanted from the beginning, it’s perfectly OK to abort it, but on the other, if the child is wanted and then discovered to have Down Syndrome or any other significant condition, it’s no longer OK to abort it….
Those of us who find abortion abhorrent have a simpler position: abortion is always wrong because it always involves the intentional killing of a human being.
It also enshrines killing and violence as a way to solve a problem and puts us, as humans, in the very dangerous position of believing we have dominance over human life, of when to take it and when to let it live.
This is also called radical autonomy, meaning we are autonomous agents who are not shackled by tradition, religion, or ethics, but only by what is legal or illegal. (Of course, truly radicalized autonomous agents don’t even regard law as a hindrance and become the school shooters in our midst.)
The traditional view, buoyed by the Judeo-Christian tradition (but not all religious traditions, to be sure), affirmed that life was sacred and that no innocent life could be taken for any reason, even one’s own.
There are all kinds of theological, moral, ethical, and practical justifications for this position, and there are exceptions, as in cases of self-defense or just war.
But once we abandon the notion that all life is sacred, we descend quickly down the slippery slope of eugenics, totalitarianism, and general societal degradation.
And that’s where we are now, sad to say, after decades of assault on traditional values and the religious foundations of our society and nation. And that’s how Ms. Marcus ends up affirming fiercely that she must have the right to terminate Down Syndrome babies, and how we continue this sad slide into Gomorrah.
Trey Hoffman
Peachtree City, Ga.
