As the abortion conversation continues in the United States, there is a particular moral dilemma that abortionists continuously sweep under the rug. Not often talked about is the fact that many pro-abortion advocates deem it perfectly acceptable to abort an unborn child solely based on a disability diagnosis. Though an idea as horrid as this sounds utterly far-fetched and in complete conflict with the “acceptance’ culture that progressives so proudly tout, it is a real line of thinking and a very real threat to the unborn.
Just last Monday, September 11th, a Court of Appeals in Arizona hinted at a possible revival of a lawsuit against Arizona’s abortion ban that was centered around babies with potential disabilities. Per Bloomberg News,
“The Ninth Circuit seemed open Monday to reviving a lawsuit that challenged an Arizona law banning abortions when sought solely because an embryo or fetus tested positive for a genetic abnormality.”
Unfortunately, it is no surprise to see such a desire from abortionists. Though they paint their movement as simply providing women with more “options”, their underlying motives are much more sinister. Ultimately, the pro-abortion argument seeks to separate an individual from personal responsibility for the sake of her convenience. To these advocates, a child with a disability is nothing more than an inconvenience that ought to be disposed of.
Beyond being morally abhorrent, this disgusting philosophy also contradicts the progressive idea of “diversity, equity, and inclusion”. Considering the abortion and progressive movement largely overlap, one would infer that most abortionists likely also support this crusade. However, it quickly becomes clear that the true beliefs of these advocates are anything but inclusive. In fact, inferring that a child does not deserve the right to live because of a disability is one of the most disgusting and discriminatory things an individual can possibly utter.
Furthermore, if legislation like this were ever passed in any measure, it would set a horrifying precedent in which the government could indirectly determine who is worthy of life and death. Though many may be quick to dismiss this as a slippery slope fallacy, if lawmakers were to allow an unborn child to be killed for having a disability in the name of “convenience”, who is to say they would never extend this to other criteria if it were politically popular enough to do so?
Ultimately, abortionists completely disregard the reality that every child is unique and infinitely valuable in their pursuit of short-term convenience. Their movement seeks to alienate as much personal responsibility from their lives as possible, and they will do anything to further that. In these advocates’ moral framework, short-term circumstantial happiness trumps all, including objective moral values. They use deceptive language and scare tactics to convince the masses whilst hiding their underlying agenda. Yet, their movement runs unchecked.
For these reasons, the time is now for the pro-life movement to be louder than ever. Abortionists will only continue to take their efforts to new extremes, and their actions thus far warrant extreme responses.