"Abortion advocates have long argued for a woman's right to control her body and to be able to dispose of the unborn child if she wishes. In a bizarre decision, a Belgian court has extended that reasoning to say that a child has a right to be aborted.The absurdity of this article lies not only in the implied eugenistic views of Belgian jurisdiction. It is in acknowledging the right of the unborn but only the right to be killed.
A Belgian journal, "Revue Générale des Assurances et Responsabilités," has just published the decision handed down by the Brussels Court of Appeal on Sept. 21 regarding the case of a child born disabled after an erroneous prenatal diagnosis, according to the Gènéthique press review for Nov. 29-Dec. 3.
The court ruled that the child's parents could claim damages from the doctors who failed to detect the disability. They said that by making therapeutic abortion legal, the legislators intended to allow women to avoid giving birth to seriously handicapped children, "having regard not only to the interests of the mother, but also to those of the unborn child itself."
Thus, the judges considered that the child would have had the "right" to an abortion if his disability had been correctly diagnosed."
However, I'm pretty sure that pro-life attorneys could use this ruling in favor of the unborn by proving that if the unborn are recognized as human beings who "have the right to a "wholesome" life", (which is basically what they mean by stating that it is better for a kid to die than to live with some kind of health disorder), then the unborn are just like any other human child, it needs love and caring from its parents and the unconditional support from our society. So killing the unborn by abortion or hurting it in any way (e.g. by hitting it or even the mum smoking while pregnant) could be ruled as murder, respectively child abuse.
Concerning a "wholesome" life, who are we to decide what is wholesome and full. Diagnosing disorders is not 100% accurate. What about those children who are born with "undetectable" abnormalities (do they have the right to die after being born?) or which abnormalities are so serious that they have to be prevented by terminating the life of a baby? If someone wants to commit suicide because he does not feel worthy enough to live (and well, he has the right to be killed - he can even be considered a conscious being who knows best what is good for him), are we allowed to push him off the bridge?
That small, fragile life needs our protection. The smile of a child with Down Syndrome is just as precious as the smile of a healthy baby.
A comment on this topic made by a friend of mine, who is a lawyer:
ReplyDelete"The main issue is that the child (fetus) has to understand what an abortion is with all the consequences before he/she can decide to be aborted. Does the fetus understand its rights in connection with the desired (!!) abortion? Has the fetus the ability to express its wish to be aborted? Every right can only be exercised if the subject to the right understands it and is able to express, either in words or in movements that he/she wants to exercise it. To my understanding an abortion can only concern an unborn child. Does an unborn child have this kind of knowledge and ability necessary in order to express him/herself... Nonsense."