According to a report in the American Center for Law and Justice’s website, at least one American publication has thought it wise to take up an international view on population control and selective genetics.
“The Atlantic – a bastion of radical Left ideology and idolatry – posted a brazenly bold declaration of support for eugenics in an article entitled: ‘The Last Children of Down Syndrome: Prenatal testing is changing who gets born and who doesn’t. This is just the beginning,” the ACLJ’s Olivia Summers reported.
The author went on to say that “The article is a grotesque glorification of the selective elimination of a whole class of human beings based on the age-old and discredited ideology that some humans are more worthy of life than others.”
The Atlantic is justifying their absurd push toward legalized murder based on Denmark’s “twisted” case:
“In 2004, Denmark became one of the first countries in the world to offer prenatal Down syndrome screening to every pregnant woman, regardless of age or other risk factors. Nearly all expecting mothers choose to take the test; of those who get a Down syndrome diagnosis, more than 95 percent choose to abort.”
The publication went on to say that, “[i]n 2019, only 18 [children with Down syndrome] were born in the entire country. (About 6,000 children with Down syndrome are born in the U.S. each year.)”
Essentially, the nation of Denmark is making sure that in a country where the government is the provider of healthcare, the people are encouraged to be as low maintenance as possible (for the purpose of economics, no doubt).
The Atlantic article went on to reference the advent of Down syndrome screening, across the world, saying that in the 1980s as the time when, “[s]uddenly, a new power was thrust into the hands of ordinary people—the power to decide what kind of life is worth bringing into the world.”
Summers, at attorney at the ACLJ, was incensed by the insinuation, saying that, “First of all, the only kind of life a man and woman bring into this world is human life. Therefore, they cannot decide ‘what kind of life’ to bring into the world. Second, abortion can only be defined as compassionate in any sense if they deny the reality that a tiny unborn human is ripped to shreds in its mother’s womb in a most inhumane and uncompassionate manner; if they deny the humanity of the unborn child.”
What Summers was referencing was the grotesque and violent way in which abortionists remove babies from their mothers. The ones who are not being maintained, whole, delivered for organ harvesting, are often ripped apart, one limb at a time, so as to disturb the mother as little as possible.
Others, however, are positioned in such a way that they have their neck and spinal cord ripped away from their skull and their brains suctioned out, while they struggle for life and freedom.
“I know that there are many who argue that killing an innocent unborn child through the barbaric method of abortion is ‘compassionate’ – for both the child and the parents,” said Summers. “‘Don’t you know that it saves them from a life of suffering with a disability?’ ‘It keeps the parents from having to sacrifice (more of themselves than they are willing to sacrifice) for their child,’ she went on, posing the arguments made by those who choose to end the life of their children.
“There are no words for how deeply wrong something is with a society in which 95 percent of mothers choose to kill their unborn child because of that child’s anticipated disability—out of fear that they will be judged by others. In fact, it is further proof of the coercive and manipulative nature of abortion.”
It seems unthinkable that something a gruesome as abortion could become not only available, but compulsory, but as so often happens when a moral atrocity is introduced, it first becomes permissible, then acceptable then mandatory, and such is the trajectory of abortions in the United States and around the world. After all, if the government is going to have to take care of our health, it makes sense that they’d try to keep costs down.