“Now I see them giving the woman abortion to kill another baby,
Miscarriage and misfortune and premature crack baby,
No sorrow for the babies,
Babies having babies,
Raising our babies”
(For The Babies, Damian Marley)
It is somewhat of a tragic irony that the same society that celebrates the achievements of the athletes at the Paralympic Games; that is inspired by the feats of these differently-abled athletes, deem it morally ethical to abort them.
Who would have thought that the same birth defect(s) could mean a death warrant for some, whilst on the other hand, with God’s providence and grace, can lead to some of the most inspiring performances, not only at an Olympic event but in everyday living.
Perhaps we should ask why it is ethically permissible to snuff out their lives in the womb and not when they are four, fourteen or forty? Of course. It is because at those ages they are “fully human” and therefore fully deserving of the same moral and legal protection as other persons. Are we not simply assuming what we are supposed to be proving (What is the unborn? and What does it mean to be human?), if we think that way?
On the one hand we say there is nothing wrong with aborting them solely because of a birth defect, yet with the same mouth we want to sing their praises and wax eloquent about their inspiration to us at events like the Paralympic Games.
James reminds us what a “restless evil” the tongue can be (James 3:8-11), “With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing.” Likewise, from the same mouth we praise and condemn to death people like Jessica Long, Daniel Dias, David Weir and Cecilia Camellini. These things ought not to be so.
Cecilia Camellini was born blind, but she can probably see a lot clearer than how some people think about this issue. I have to laugh, not because it is funny, when I hear this hullabaloo about how the elderly are (mis)-treated. Why so surprised and outraged?
Is it not perfectly consistent with how we treat other human beings who are at their most vulnerable? Those who we have “no use” for? Those who are, according to our definition, not “fully human”? We marginalize, discard and kill them. Granted, this behaviour is perfectly consistent with naturalism; but that is another story.
– Adrian Sobers