THE post Roe v Wade era is laden with examples of moral compromise of the type that’s eventually overturned and eradicated by liberal extremism. The US Supreme Court ruling was initially a compromise, until it was inevitably used to justify every brutal murder of babies born and unborn.
Now this editor from the very liberal (and Jeff Bezos owned) Washington Post (WAPO), is sounding the clarion call to have women butcher their unborn babies “known” to have Down Syndrome — all in defense of their alleged “rights” and (ironically), out of the alleged pity she has for people suffering from that dreadful disease everywhere.
And this is how it always begins, with an extreme: today it is to spare this baby of a lifetime of “suffering” from Down Syndrome by killing it; tomorrow it will be to spare any baby of any number of diseases by murdering it.
Ruth Marcus, (the afore referenced WAPO editor) opened by writing in her article entitled ‘I would’ve aborted a foetus with Down Syndrome. Women need that right’ that the push to illegalize the abortion of babies diagnosed in the womb with Down Syndrome, is “unconstitutional, unenforceable — and wrong.”
She conceded that “This is a difficult subject to discuss because there are so many parents who have — and cherish — a child with Down Syndrome; and that “Many people with Down Syndrome live happy and fulfilled lives.”
However, these concessions did not prevent her from concluding: “I can say without hesitation that, tragic as it would have felt and ghastly as a second-trimester abortion would have been, I would have terminated those pregnancies had the testing come back positive.”
So, someone who describes “second-trimester abortion” as “ghastly” would have gone through with it anyway, simply because her child could have had Down Syndrome.
She even had the gall to bookend it by writing; “I would have grieved the loss and moved on.”
So, according to this editor, being in the womb with Down Syndrome is now a crime punishable by death, joining the other unborn babies who are conceived without having been “planned for.”
Marcus goes on to write that she does not believe abortion is equal to murder and that those who do would, “of course…make a different choice.”
In order for Marcus to be consistent in her belief that abortion is not murder, she would have to conclude that the unborn are not human, since murder only applies to human beings.
However, despite the fact that she does not believe that the aborting the unborn is murder, she believes wholeheartedly that (whatever is in the womb of the woman) has Down Syndrome? How does that work out exactly?
Patronisingly, she wrote: “I respect — I admire — families that knowingly welcome a baby with Down Syndrome into their lives” before writing that: “Accepting that essential truth is different from compelling a woman to give birth to a child whose intellectual capacity will be impaired, whose life choices will be limited, whose health may be compromised.”
Again, the word “retard” — to liberals like her — would be more harmful to a person with Down Syndrome, than the termination of that person’s life — typical twisted logic by a liberal, the kind of compassion that compels them to justify the murder of the unborn (by whatever name), simply because that person may not be intellectually normal.
I stress on “may” because the Down Syndrome diagnosis of the unborn does not have a 100% accuracy rate. Yet, here is Marcus openly advocating for the woman’s right to put the unborn to death, on the mere possibility (not certainty) that the baby has Down Syndrome.
In our society, someone like that is now using the law as a mantle to justify her murderous logic.
In order to defend her belief that abortion isn’t murder, she claims that “the Supreme Court has affirmed my freedom to have that belief…” before citing a CBS article chronicling numbers of persons with Down syndrome in Iceland.
The article attributes that statistic to “the vast majority of women — close to 100 percent – who” when they “received a positive test for Down Syndrome terminated their pregnancy.”
The Eugenic nature of this policy in Iceland should send shock waves through persons in society who are viewed as an unnecessary burden. Today, it’s the unborn with Down Syndrome; tomorrow it’s the born; and next week, the elderly in general.
When will it end?
Marcus then went on to lament the efforts of certain US states that have “passed legislation to prohibit doctors from performing abortions if the sole reason is because of a diagnosis of Down Syndrome…” stating that such legislation is “flatly inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling…”
The states she named as having passed those “anti-abortion” laws (as she calls them) are North Dakota, Ohio, Indiana and Louisiana.
Above all, Marcus’ apparent loyalty to “the law” of her land is hypocritical, given that she is a noted gun control advocate — a sentiment which is “flatly inconsistent” with the US’ Second Amendment.
In a 2013 article on gun control, Marcus wrote that “I’m all for limiting access to assault weapons…” — a direct contradiction of her country’s laws. She only leans on them when they suit her pro-abortion feminist agenda.
The need to defend the right of the unborn with Down Syndrome to not be murdered for the crime of having a mental retardation is more urgent than ever before, with the pro-abortion crowd continuing to limit the number of people who qualify for a chance at life.
