So writes an anguished and anonymous father after witnessing the abortion of two of his triplets in a selective reduction at his wife’s insistence: their round of IVF was a little too successful. This is heartbreaking to read:
My wife didn’t look, but I had to. I had to know what would happen to my children. I had to know how they would die.
Each retreated, pushing away, as the needle entered the amniotic sac. They did not inject into the placenta, but directly into each child’s torso. Each one crumpled as the needle pierced the body. I saw the heart stop in the first, and mine almost did, too. The other’s heart fought, but ten minutes later they looked again, and it too had ceased.
The doctors had the gall to call the potassium chloride, the chemical that stopped children’s hearts, “medicine.” I wanted to ask what they were trying cure—life? But bitter words would not undo what had happened. I swallowed anything I might have said.
I know they felt pain. I know they felt panic. And I know this was murder. I take cold comfort in knowing that as far as we can tell, the survivor is still fine, and in knowing that this decision did not come from me; I would have taken the chance on triplets, even with all the work and effort it would have required. I pray that this one child will come to term, will be born into this world alive and healthy, and I know he or she will have all our love.
How doctors who work to help childless couples achieve the dream of parenthood via IVF can so easily pick two of the three to abort escapes me. Easy come, easy go? It’s not just a clump of cells, an argument anonymous dad relates to:
But let nobody fool you. It is not painless for the child, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. Abortion is not an excision of a featureless bunch of cells; it is infanticide. We have revived the practice of child sacrifice to the new deities of casual sex and convenience. We rationalize the reality of murder by altering our perspective of the nascent life through euphemisms like “fetus” or descriptions of “a clump of cells”…just like the Nazis convinced themselves that the people screaming as they were shot or gassed were “Untermenchen,” subhuman, and therefore guiltlessly exterminated.
This is how every perpetrator of genocide has always rationalized his or her actions. By doing likewise, we condemn our own souls
I wept in joy, a few years ago, when I saw my first child’s heartbeat on the screen. And I weep in agony now at the memory of two of my children’s heartbeats being stilled. “Save one, or save none” has been eclipsed by “Out, out, damned spot!” as I wonder how I can redeem myself.
If, by baring this scar for others to see, I can prevent an abortion, perhaps that will help to balance the scales for when I face G-d’s justice and I finally meet those two children—who I hope will forgive me for my failure.
It’s striking to contrast the anguish of anonymous dad with that of a proud abortion activist. Jessica DelBalzo chafes at the mere mention of “rare” abortions as a means to placate the right-to-lifers:
“I love abortion. I don’t accept it. I don’t view it as a necessary evil. I embrace it. I donate to abortion funds. I write about how important it is to make sure that every woman has access to safe, legal abortion services. I have bumper stickers and buttons and t-shirts proclaiming my support for reproductive freedom. I love abortion,” DelBalzo declares. …
As Delbalzo writes, “And I bristle every time a fellow activist uses a trendy catch-phrase or rallying cry meant to placate pro-lifers. The first of these, “Make abortion safe, legal, and rare!” has been used for decades as a call for abortion rights.”
“Safe and legal are concepts I fully support, but rare is something I cannot abide. I understand the theoretical mindset: it is better for a woman to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to bear the physical and financial burden of an abortion. While my own abortion involved very little pain and a minimal financial expense, one which my ex-boyfriend was willing to share with me, even I can admit that using condoms or the pill is preferable to eight weeks of nausea and weight gain,” she writes. “However, there is no need to suggest that abortion be rare.”
No need. Just little pain and expense and ta-dah! So much preferable to nausea and weight gain. DelBalzo argues that the suggestion of rarity implies some sort of judgement be made.
In truth, we need more abortion activists like DelBalzo who charmlessly expose the reality of the situation: they truly don’t want “safe, legal and rare.” They want no-holds barred. They want to be able to murder children after birth to spare folks unnecessary anguish of adoption. They refuse to see the blood of millions on their hands as they advocate for the slaughter of millions more. Surreal.
Filed under: Abortion |