One of the most disturbing philosophical beliefs of the left is that it is actually more moral to kill a baby who has been diagnosed with a health condition in the womb than to let it be born.
This was one of the core beliefs of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who famously said, “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it” (Woman and the New Race, Margaret Sanger).
“Allowing” a child to live when it may be a burden on its family or have a less-than-perfect life in any way is one of the chief moral defenses of abortion. However, as Romans 3:8 says, we cannot simply do evil that good may come.
However, a UK mother clearly felt differently when she sued her doctors for the “wrongful birth” of her hemophiliac, autistic son, who she says she would have aborted had she known his condition.
In her mind, knowing and loving her own flesh and blood is actually morally inferior to the right to have terminated his life before he even left her womb.
The UK courts apparently agreed, awarding her £9,000,000 (approximately $12 million US).
Omodele Meadows, now 40, said that had she been given correct information by doctors, she would have aborted her child Adejuwon, now 6, early in her pregnancy. It was never her intent to give birth to a child with hemophilia.
After a nephew was born with the disease in 2006, Meadows had herself tested for the gene linked for the disease. She was assured that she did not have it.
Meadows assumed therefore that her offspring would not suffer from hemophilia and did not have Adejuwon tested before birth. After the baby was born and diagnosed with the disease, Meadows took another test and found out that she was indeed a carrier.
She then sued Doctor Hafshah Khan, who did not carry out the initial test, but did give Meadows the results.
Lawyers for Dr Khan had agreed to pay Meadows £1.4 million (approx. $1.8 million US) for care relating to his hemophilia. But Adejuwon’s autism, they held, was merely a matter of “bad luck” and additional damages should not be sought to cover the extra care the condition necessitates. Mrs Justice Yip disagreed and awarded his mother £9 million.
This is the sickening floodgate that legalized abortion has entered. We are euthanizing babies before they are even given a chance to live. We all have mortal bodies that are vulnerable to disease and decay, and yet because a baby might be born with a medical condition, death is more suitable?
This is obviously what Justice Yip felt, noting in her remarks that, “The effect of the doctor’s negligence was to remove the mother’s opportunity to terminate a pregnancy that she would not have wanted to continue.”
This little boy, by the way, is now six years old.
Dr. Anthony McCarthy of England and Wales’ Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (SPUC) spoke with LifeSiteNews about the moral implications had he been murdered.
“The judge says that Adejuwon is very much loved and that the claim is not now that he is an ‘unwanted child’,” he said. “Wanted or not, everyone would admit that it would be utterly wrong to end his life because of his disability.”
“Surely our society can support the parents of disabled children without the deeply sinister suggestion that those parents should have been allowed to end those children’s lives,” he continued. “There is nothing medical about facilitating this in the case of an unborn, any more than a born, child.”