Double Standards?
I've watched the sensationalised story of a 63 year old mother-to-be unfold in the media this week. They seem like well-adjusted people from what I can see who have thought about the issues. They say they have made adequate provision for this child should they die prematurely. And they project great joy at the thought of bringing a life into the world.
I've listened to the arguments that this is somehow unethical. That somehow this child will be disadvantaged by the age of its parents or put in danger of its life because of the advanced age of its mother. The point seems to be that the baby's life could be put at risk because of the higher chance of fatal complications around delivery.
What gets me is that all this fuss is being made about a couple with an agenda to bring a life into the world.
In 2004 there were 18,210 induced abortions in New Zealand. Now there's a fatal complication. Doesn't even make the headlines.
2 comments:
It doesn't make the headlines because, unfortunately, it's so normal.
I wonder: is there any greater indictment on a society than the charge of murdering the helpless?
And yes, I know abortion is sometimes a grey area, but the number is way too high for the few grey cases.
We have a legal fiction: first trimester abortion is not murder when applying the flimsiest of tests concerning the "mother's welfare." In almost every other area of law we err on the side of saving life - euthanasia, death penalty, murder laws etc - but in this one area a truly awful double standard exists.
Post a Comment