News articles such as these are frequently making the rounds into our media feeds. In this article, I want to call particular attention to the instances being used by secular media to promote abortion as healthcare, usually citing cases of fatal prenatal abnormalities.

Riding on the waves of sentimentality, mainstream media is promoting abortion as the best available choice for women. But the fabric of humanity is not made entirely of emotions alone. It is a tapestry of physical, emotional, psychological, moral and spiritual components weaving together, every part as important as the other.

Medical science is greatly helpful in diagnosing the condition of a baby in utero. It is a shame when medical professionals presume to use this knowledge to tell parents they can now decide to actively “terminate” their baby. To offer parents the sole choice of suffocating or dismembering their non-viable baby, in order to alleviate the temporary emotional distress they might be experiencing is exposing them to long lasting psychological and emotional trauma.

Death of a child is extremely traumatic for parents. Counting down the days, knowing that your baby won’t make it can be understandably agonizing. Grieving is a necessary part of dealing with that trauma. But to be responsible for inducing an early death by cruel and painful methods is a burden that parents should not be forced to carry.

With Planned Parenthood and pro-abortionists selling the lie that it is a quick in and out procedure with no details of what the procedure really is, I truly believe that most parents given a limited time to make a life or death decision are choosing abortions ignorant of what it entails.

I hold no judgement towards parents who choose abortion in a period of great vulnerability. But to those who provide this as the optimal solution, what do we say? Isn’t there anything to be said for the morality of the act or the humanity of the child? To put parents in the position of having to kill their own babies, babies they had dreams and hopes for? And to journalists and media personalities who uphold abortion as “the ultimate savior of women”, what do we say? Of course, these emotionally charged stories strike a note with readers (because who among us haven’t experienced loss and suffering?) but they are also what drive mobs beyond the realms of rationality! They can be a powerful tool to evoke empathy but they must never be used to dull consciences and sway us away from reason.

For the sake of simplicity, I refer to this article, where two arguments are made: first, carrying the baby to term put (mother’s) life at risk because of preexisting conditions. I expect this would have been a concern even if the baby was completely healthy. Isn’t this a risk that was taken into consideration early on in the pregnancy? Wouldn’t appropriate medical attention and care be extended to her if her baby didn’t have the diagnosis? So why is that choice withheld from her in this situation?

Some other articles mentioned doctors not fearful of treating at-risk women due to abortion laws. Unfortunately, medical professionals have been trained and empowered to take the lives of the unborn in such cases. Abortion law does not prevent a mother whose life is in danger from receiving the treatments she needs even if it results in the loss of the baby’s life. This is done by inducing labor or delivering the baby alive through medical interventions. The difference may seem subtle but has enormous weight in the decision making. Perhaps this is an invitation for those in the medical field to grow in their competency and discretion by reviewing case by case. Abortion has been the norm for far too long.

The second reason cited was, “to prevent (the baby) suffering”. Studies show that babies in the womb as young as 15 weeks can feel pain. If the baby could speak for himself, I’m certain that the comfort of their mother’s womb in their suffering would be greatly preferred to the methods used for abortion. But of course, “fetuses” can’t speak and hence we assume that they would choose death for themselves if they could.

I reckon it is far easier living with the natural death of a child than having to live with deliberately choosing to end your child’s life.

Most of us are capable of rational, moral decision-making no matter how deep our emotions may run. (It’s probably the only thing keeping many of us from prisons!) This is precisely why when parents are faced with the discovery of their child’s fatality, we as a community including family and friends, medical professionals, media persons, spiritual leaders, and everyone involved, must rally to support them emotionally and rationally in the midst of a crisis instead of pushing them to make choices they may come to regret with time. And there are other choices! I contend that a truly compassionate approach would be to give the choice of living out their parenthood in the brief time they have with their baby than to rip that privilege away from them.

It is still their baby, viable or not. If non-viability is what determines the choice for abortion, perhaps it is because we have told them that the child is of better value to them dead than suffering – physically, financially and emotionally. Would we take this approach with babies outside of the womb? Would we kill a child who was dying just to spare parents emotional anguish?

Currently, 80% of parents with fatal prenatal diagnosis abort their babies. When offered the right kind of perinatal hospice care, 75-85% of parents are likely to carry their babies to term despite the circumstances.

Parents have a right to be allowed to grieve while also acting humanely towards their unborn. I would argue that those in the medical field have a duty to expend all options of real healthcare for women in difficult pregnancies without offering abortion first. To not do so is to unnecessarily make their non-viable baby a threat to the parent’s well-being.

When the fatal instruments have been put away, when the news story has run its course and all is silent, will their grief echo consolation or despair at what was chosen?

Remember I said there are other options? Be Not Afraid (BNA) offers support to parents carrying to term following a prenatal diagnosis. BNA along with Heartbeat Int’l, Charlotte Lozier Institute and Her Plan is working on a national initiative to create a prolife network of service providers who can offer case management support to parents carrying to term following a prenatal diagnosis. They offer training to organizations in developing their own BNA-modeled service. Find more information on www.prenataldiagnosis.org.  

The champagne carpets were rolled out.

The stage was set.

The winners were decided.

The Oscar ceremony unfolded in a celebration of fashion, culture and talent on Sunday.

Amidst the glitz and glam, the audience witnessed a number of what I believe to be pro-life moments on and off stage.

(Did you notice how many mothers were thanked at the Oscars???)

One among the winners who walked up the stage to receive the honor of the coveted golden statue was James Martin. Surrounded by the directors and a co-actor of An Irish Goodbye, he was celebrated on stage with these heartwarming words by Tom Berkeley, “This award is actually the second most important thing about today because it’s this man’s birthday… We’d love to use the rest of our time up here to sing for him.” They proceeded to sing Happy Birthday to him as the audience joined in.

What is striking about this scene is that the world is full of praise for this man who made history as the first actor with Down Syndrome to win an Oscar while also holding strongly to the conviction that the law must allow children with disabilities to be aborted.

Ironically for James Martin, the United Kingdom, from whence he hails, has a law that permits abortion up to birth when “there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped” which includes Down’s Syndrome.

Last year, Heidi Crowter, a 27 year old woman with Down’s Syndrome, appealed over this law and lost. When asked to comment, the chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Services, Clare Murphy is reported to have said, “There is no contradiction between a society which champions the rights of disabled people and one which allows women to make difficult decisions in heart-breaking situations.” She is reported to have further commented that the case was an attack on pregnant women’s rights – “not just to abortion, but to making their own decisions during childbirth”.

But I ask, isn’t there a contradiction? How are we championing the rights of disabled people if we are also championing mothers who end these very lives?

The argument is always that the woman’s right to be able to live a fulfilling life would be significantly crippled by having a child that needs special attention, that a Down Syndrome child will make life more difficult for her than a normal child, that the child will not have “the quality of life” he deserves. And hence, must be allowed by law to “terminate the baby”. There is little to no threat to the mother’s life or health in these circumstances, not any more than in the usual cases. To promote the idea that any child, able or disabled, needs to die for a woman to live as she wants is greatly misguided.

According to United States Congress Joint Economic Comittee, up to 60-90 percent of babies predicted to be born with the condition is lost to abortion in the US. If given a chance who knows what beautiful things they might go on to do. Of course not every person with Down Syndrome will make it to the Oscars or make it big in the world. But if we were to put people in categories of abled and disabled, I’m sure the statement will remain true for both. On what basis do we decide which ones to terminate and which ones to keep?

Interestingly, gong back to the Oscars, a lot of the winners in their acceptance speeches, spoke of struggles, of failures and almost giving up, of family and friends who supported them. Many of them also spoke of their mothers. Acknowledging the sacrifices they made for them, grown men and women talked about bringing their winning trophy home to their mothers.

Human beings have always been a species of resilient creatures. Struggling is how we’ve made it. When a new life comes into being, it is important to recognize that challenges will arise. And how we make it through them determines so much of the outcome. We are capable of creative problem solving, of rising above our circumstances and finding ways for both mother and child to live extremely fulfilling lives. But if the first choice offered is to take the easy way out, where does that leave them both?

By pushing abortion in any case is to limit the endless possibilities that can be. One family’s choice to explore their options led to medical history. Adiah Laelynn and Adrial Luka Nadaraja were born at just 22 weeks, according to Guinness World Record, the world’s most premature twins. And now history is being made in the entertainment industry by someone who would have been a “choice”. When will the world that celebrates the successes of people it qualified for abortions, wake up to the paradox of its own making?

On a parting note, kudos to the team of An Irish Goodbye for recognizing that even winning the Oscar comes only second to the person of James Martin as they celebrated his birthday.