2.06.2007

Flabbergasted!

So the big Canadian news story over the last few days has been this baby left on a doorstep in Saskatoon.

I read the original story in The Globe and Mail, you can read the story here.

I don`t want to comment on the story directly but rather on the comments that came up. I will copy them directly.

The first comment that I noticed was:

Erin Ballantyne from Canada writes: At least she didn't abort the baby.

I was going to make the same comment myself.

As could be predicted, someone tried to show that Erin was misdirected. Here is the comment:

Howard Fick from Canada writes: Erin Ballantyne get your head screwed on tighter. Obviously she didn't want the child. I think abortion is a viable option, especially in cases like this. I am sure the mother was scared out of her mind, and chances are she had little or no support (if she did, this surely would not have happened). I do hope the baby is safe and healthy, and that the mother is able to get some help that she needs.

If you didn`t notice the problems with this thinking, maybe this comment will help clear things up:

C M from Nagoya, Canada writes: Howard Fick, Erin is fine.The mental gymnastics required to buy into your moral view are astounding.

In one sentence you claim that `abortion is a viable option`, then two sentences later, you hope that the child is `safe and healthy`.

You defend this womans right to kill her child, and then you wish the child health and wellness!

That the child is `unwanted` is a red herring. It has no bearing on the child`s right to life. Using that line of `reasoning` is a cop out.

This child is the same person whether she is inside her mother or outside her mother.

I was simply stunned that Mr. Fick could honestly say that abortion should be considered a viable option and then turn around and wish the child health and wellness. Unfortunately, this rationale is far too common.

People think that they are being morally neutral by saying that abortion is wrong for them, but that they wouldn`t want to impose their morality on someone else.

If someone uses this line of reasoning, ask them why they think that abortion is wrong for them. They will likely answer that they think that abortion kills a baby.

Then all you have to do is feed their view back to them and see if they still agree.

Their view is that:

  1. Abortion kills a baby.
  2. It is ok for other people to kill babies, but they don`t like it.

This is not a morally neutral stance. It is barbaric.

4 comments:

Mom M said...

Bravo, CM from Nagoya, Canada. Furthermore, "abort" (or abortion) and "viable," do not belong in the same sentence. In reference to a fetus, that is, a baby, though not yet born, the term, "viability," is used to assess whether or not the development is at a stage that will support extrauterine life. A gestation period of 23 weeks (that's 23 out of full-term 40 weeks) is generally not thought to produce a "vialbe" infant. But you and I both know that now 4 or 5 year old child!

Laurel-Anne said...

When I first heard this story, my first impression of the mother was that she must have been strong/brave enough to resist the pressure from perhaps everyone she knows to abort her child. I realize that may not be the case, but I find it sad that most people assume she must be in need of help because she didn't abort.

Mom C said...

Most excellent!!
Thankyou for stating it so clearly.
Were you able to send your comments into the Globe & Mail on-line?

sans auto said...

So your family is leaning slightly to the pro-life side...

Well written, I agree completely