Blog | Subscribe | Free Trial | Contact Us | Cart | Donate | Planned Giving
Log In | Search
facebook
rss
twitter
  • CURRENT
    • Spring 2022 PDF
    • Spring 2022 Articles
    • NEWSworthy: What’s Happening and What It Means to You
    • Blog
    • INSISTING ON LIFE
    • Pastoral Reflections
    • About Us
    • HLF In The News
  • DINNER
    • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2021
    • Great Defender of Life 2021 Dinner Ticket
    • SPONSOR a TABLE at the Great Defender of Life 2021 Dinner
    • HOST COMMITTEE Great Defender of Life Dinner 2021
    • DINNER JOURNAL ADVERTISING 2021
  • ARCHIVE
    • Archive Spotlight
  • LEGACY
    • Planned Giving: Wills, Trusts, and Gifts of Stock
  • SHOP
    • Cart

HOT TOPIC

0 Comment

The Worst of Times

27 Aug 2015
William Murchison
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

 

Aha, caught in the act! But, then, for the New York Times the act never ends—defending abortion as a high and holy pursuit irrespective of anything else going on, such as the eradication of Down syndrome through eradication of future Down syndrome babies.

You always hope there’s some scruple the abortion lobby will exhibit when it comes to abortion; some twinge of horror over exercise, in some instance or other, of the Supreme Court-guaranteed right to an abortion.

Nope. Not so’s anyone can tell.

Here’s the faithful Times editorial page, keeping Roe v. Wade watch:

It is tempting to dismiss the latest anti-choice salvo from Ohio lawmakers, which would criminalize abortions based on a fetal diagnosis of Down syndrome, as a blatantly unconstitutional ploy that would never been enforced.

That would be a mistake . . . These politicians routinely spout the virtues of limited government, and yet they are eager to place all manner of obstacles in the way of women trying to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion . . . [through] instilling guilt and fear in women making intensely personal and private decisions about their own bodies. In fact, a significant majority of women who receive a fetal diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to abort their pregnancv. A smaller percentage choose to carry the fetus to term. In both cases, it is a personal decision. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/opinion/abortion-and-down-syndrome.html)

        We’ve got that all right, haven’t we—personal, in the sense of attaching exclusively to the bearer of a life the Times finds of negligible importance? Clearly, no kid with Down syndrome is going to grow up to read the Times editorial page. That fact alone possibly rules him out of consideration for mercy.

That kids with Down syndrome can grow up to hold worthwhile jobs (as distinguished from the job of writing editorials for the New York Times); that they take profound pride in personal achievements that Times editorialists obviously see as unworthy of recognition, or find embarrassing; that they are known as exceptionally loving human beings; that they receive exceptional love from parents who trouble to bring them joy and fulfillment—well, you know, big deal!

All of this—big deal! Who cares, and why? No such life as I mention rates compassion or social concern. It’s Roe, Roe, Roe your boat, all the time, and into the twilight. To the Times’ deep thinkers, no moral consideration matches the right of unobstructed “choice.”

The marks of barbarism and moral degeneracy are all over judgments such as the Times’ editorial writers render concerning worth and value and respect for life. And who, at this civilizational passage, is at all surprised?

*     *     *     *

—William Murchison, a senior editor of the Human Life Review, writes from Dallas for Creators Syndicate.

143 people have visited this page. 1 have visited this page today.

Social Share

  • google-share

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Comments will not be posted until approved by a moderator in an effort to prevent spam and off-topic responses.

*
*

captcha *

Get the Human Life Review

subscribe to HLR

Recent Posts

ROE OVERTURNED

24 Jun 2022

Amid Possibility of ‘Roe’ Overturning, Pro-life Centers Face Threats and Attacks

15 Jun 2022

What New York’s “Limited Service Pregnancy Center” Bill Really Represents

14 Jun 2022

CURRENT ISSUE

Anne Conlon Anne Hendershott B G Carter Brian Caulfield Christopher White Clarke Forsythe Colleen O’Hara Connie Marshner David Mills David Poecking David Quinn Diane Moriarty Dr. Donald DeMarco Edward Mechmann Edward Short Ellen Wilson Fielding Fr. Gerald E. Murray George McKenna Jane Sarah Jason Morgan Joe Bissonnette John Grondelski Kathryn Jean Lopez Kristan Hawkins Laura Echevarria Madeline Fry Schultz Maria McFadden Maffucci Mary Meehan Mary Rose Somarriba Meaghan Bond Nat Hentoff Nicholas Frankovich Patrick J. Flood Peter Pavia Rev. George G. Brooks Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth Stephen Vincent Tara Jernigan Ursula Hennessey Victor Lee Austin Vincenzina Santoro W. Ross Blackburn Wesley J. Smith William Doino Jr. William Murchison

Pages

  • Issues
  • Human Life Foundation Blog
  • About Us
  • Free Trial Issue
  • Contact Us
  • Shop
  • Planned Giving
  • TOPICS

Follow Us On Twitter

Tweets by @HumanLifeReview

Find Us On Facebook

Human Life Review/Foundation

Search our Website

Contact Information

The Human Life Foundation, Inc.
The Human Life Review
271 Madison Avenue, Room 1005
New York, New York 10016
(212) 685-5210

Copyright (c) The Human Life Foundation.