The horrific recrudescence of European eugenicists marches on like a storm trooper’s hob-nailed boot to crush the inherent beauty and dignity of human life upon the drab gray, pagan altar of their globalist ideology.
Defined as the “the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations (as by sterilization) [or by abortion] to improve the population’s genetic composition,” eugenics has a long and sordid history in Europe and, yes, in America. Many believed sane, humane minds had rejected this insidious delusion for perfecting humanity.
They didn’t understand the Left and its brutal compulsion coercively to seek the unattainable perfection of humanity, whether humans wanted it or not.
In the recent past, we examined Iceland’s repugnant boast that it was nearing its goal of eradicating Down syndrome by aborting unborn children who may have the genetic marker for it. In this “voluntary” effort, the government not so subtly brings cultural and societal pressures to bear upon the pregnant mother to induce the abortion of her “afflicted” unborn child. The insidious argument preys upon the maternal instinct by alleging the child is better off not being born than he or she is being born and living with Down syndrome. Given its “progress,” Iceland nevertheless remains mum on what other syndromes or traits might next justify a death sentence for unborn children.
Yet Iceland is not the only European government that describes killing unborn children as a virtuous necessity for “the common good.”
The Catholic News Agency on Friday reported: “A British judge has authorized doctors to perform an abortion on a pregnant Catholic woman with developmental disabilities and a mood disorder, despite the objections of the woman’s mother and the woman herself.”
The case came about because the 22 weeks pregnant woman, believed to be in her 20s, was under the care of the NHS trust, which is a part of the UK’s National Health Service, due to her aforementioned disabilities. The NHS trust’s doctors argued the woman should have an abortion. The pregnant woman, her mother—a practicing Catholic opposed to abortion who has said she would care for her grandchild—and the woman’s social worker all vehemently objected. Consequently, the matter wound up in the Court of Protection that “handles cases involving individuals judged to lack the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.”
In court, the NHS trust’s doctors claimed: “the abortion would be less traumatic for the woman than giving birth, especially if the baby would then be placed in foster care.” This ghoulish argument is ridiculous on its face because it holds that the pregnant mother would be more traumatized by having her child raised by her mother or by giving her child up for adoption than she would by being forcibly dragged into an abortion mill and having her unborn child killed. (How the unborn child would feel about it was never an issue for these “experts.”)
Despicably, these doctors’ claims received a sympathetic hearing from a judge who is no doubt a fan of Buck v. Bell and the ironically titled “Justice” Nathalie Lieven.
In siding with the doctors and against the pregnant woman, her mother, and her social worker, the judge didn’t admit her decision was tantamount to the involuntary sterilization of the pregnant woman and a governmental decree for the execution of an innocent human life.
No, Justice Lieven stated her decision to kill the unborn child was one grounded in compassion for the pregnant woman: “I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the State to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn’t want it is an immense intrusion [but] I have to operate in [her] best interests.”
And what are her “best interests”?
Having casually dismissed the woman’s mother’s offer to raise the unborn child as not practicable due to her daughter’s disabilities, Justice Lieven decreed: “I think [the woman] would suffer greater trauma from having a baby removed” [from her care], because “it would at that stage be a real baby.”
Clarifying—and compounding her execrable decision—Justice Lieven alleged the woman’s pregnancy “although real to [her], doesn’t have a baby outside her body she can touch.”
Evidently, Justice Lieven has never felt or has forgotten how unborn children kick inside the womb or how others have placed a hand on the stomach of an expectant mother and felt this kick.
But what can one expect from this “justice” who, prior to reaching the bench, represented the British Pregnancy Advisory Service—an Orwellian name for an abortion provider—and argued British women should be able to have abortions at home rather than a hospital?
What can one expect from this “justice” who, prior to reaching the bench, argued restrictions in “Northern Ireland’s abortion laws were a violation of the United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act” and claimed they were “akin to torture.”
Yes, what can one expect from this “justice” who now feels her eugenicist decree that a pregnant woman must endure a forced abortion and de facto sterilization is compassionate—and, of course, for the common good?
Nothing good. Pray for Europe.
Photo Credit: Xavier Serrano/EyeEm/Getty Images