Aborting the “Wrong” Baby, From Albert Mohler’s Blog

This post is not my own. It is straight up copy/pasted. This doesn’t mean I support everything said on Mohler’s blog (nor am I saying that I don’t), but I wholeheartedly agree with this post. Please note attribution:
Date: April 14, 2010 9:29:36 AM CDT
Subject: NewsNote: Aborting the “Wrong” Baby?
Source: AlbertMohler.com
Author: Albert Mohler

The news out of Sarasota, Florida caught many people by surprise. A doctor in the city has lost his license because he aborted what is now described as the “wrong” baby. Back in 2006, Dr. Matthew Kachinas had been asked to perform an abortion on a baby that had been identified as having Down syndrome and other congenital defects. Instead, the doctor aborted that baby’s healthy twin.

As reported in The Miami Herald:

A Sarasota doctor has lost his license for mistakenly aborting a healthy twin during a procedure targeting a deformed fetus. Immediately after the Florida Board of Medicine’s decision Saturday, Dr. Matthew Kachinas was involuntarily hospitalized because he said he planned to commit suicide. Kachinas had blamed faulty ultrasound equipment for the 2006 mistake. He was targeting a fetus with Down syndrome and signs of a heart defect.

CBS News added further details: “The woman had asked the doctor to perform a selective termination procedure on the male fetus, which had congenital defects. An ultrasound later showed that other fetus, a female that did not appear to have medical problems, had been terminated.”

What are we to make of this? We now know that the vast majority of babies identified prenatally as carrying the genetic markers for Down syndrome are aborted. National statistics indicate that 80-90% of such babies are now aborted — meaning that we have launched a search and destroy mission on Down syndrome babies in the womb.

The situation with Dr. Kachinas reveals the horribly confused morality that marks modern America and, in far too many cases, the practice of medicine. This doctor was asked to perform what is now euphemistically called a “selective reduction.” Instead, he aborted “the wrong baby,” killing a healthy baby instead of the baby identified as carrying the markers for Down syndrome.

Consider what this means for the sanctity of human life. We are now looking at babies as consumer products. We will accept babies that meet our specified qualifications, and abort when medical tests or other factors reveal that the baby does not meet our standards. Human life is reduced to just another consumer product subject to consumer preferences and demand.

Do we recognize what this means? The abortion of Down syndrome babies is a scandal of the first degree, and this nation is growing more complacent and complicit in this scandal by the day. Beyond this, we can be certain that babies are now being targeted in the womb for reasons far beyond Down syndrome. Specialists working with autism are concerned that forthcoming genetic tests will but (sic) babies who carry markers for austism next on the list for prenatal search and destroy missions.

This news story out of Florida is a warning to the entire nation. What is the real scandal here — that this doctor was ready to kill a baby with Down syndrome, or merely that he aborted “the wrong baby?”

The answer to that question will tell us all we need to know about the conscience of the age.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler

Doctor’s License Revoked After Botched Abortion,” The Miami Herald, Monday, April 12, 2010.

Doctor Terminates Wrong Baby, Loses License,” CBS News, Tuesday, April 13, 2010.

About Nicole

Daughter of God, wife, mother, volunteer youth leader, substitute teacher, aspiring writer, rabbit owner, nature lover. These are some of my titles.
This entry was posted in News and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Aborting the “Wrong” Baby, From Albert Mohler’s Blog

  1. FoolsGold says:

    And if a Down Syndrome baby is not aborted should society be forced to bear the expenses of institutionalization? Should we all have to pay for Tay-Sachs disease when it is largely restricted to Jews?
    Look at the efforts to make smokers pay for their own medical costs: they chose to smoke, let them pay for emphysema care!
    Look at the legislation to impose the use of motorcycle helmets so accident victims do not become an economic liability to the general taxpayer. What is the difference between the economic effect of a disabling head injury and the economic effect of a disabling pre-natal injury?
    We spend massive amounts of money where quality of life will not be improved for the patient.
    Lifeboat economics imposes Lifeboat Ethics!

  2. Nicole says:

    You bring up so many issues, let me see if I can address them all.

    Many people with Down syndrome don’t need institutionalization. They live happy, fulfilling lives under the care of parents or other family members. They can get jobs and live at least semi-independent lives.

    Why single out the Jews? There are plenty of diseases that predominately affect a certain group. Are you suggesting that we should select which diseases should be covered by insurance based on discrimination? No, I don’t think we should do that.

    Should smokers pay their own medical costs? I don’t know. But you hit on a key point there. The smoker chose to smoke. The baby did not choose anything that led to Down syndrome.

    The motorcycle helmet is preventative. It does not harm the motorcyclist, but benefits him or her through physical protection as well as being economically beneficial to society. But if a motorcyclist chose not to wear a helmet and got in an accident, we would not deny them treatment and leave them dying on the pavement as a punishment.

    Because we are a society, we support and take care of each other. Ideally, it is equal/mutual support. But this isn’t an ideal world, so some will require more support and some will be able to provide more support. As human beings we choose this because we value individual life and collective society.

    Alternatively, you are suggesting that we should eliminate people who are a financial burden. By that logic, should we kill people who are unemployed during this difficult time in our economy? That would lead to a society of only productive workers and less welfare checks and few mouths to feed. That would be economically beneficial but morally wrong. Utterly depraved.

    You see, it’s a very slippery slope when you start selectively assigning value to human beings based on economics. Life is far greater than money.

  3. FoolsGold says:

    Its true that many cases are mild, but that does not mean that the mother should be forced to undergo the risk and endure the major case.

    No one is saying we should deny care to the motorcyclist, but we impose the helmet obligation based on financial risk to all the taxpayers and the Downs Syndrome is the same thing: a financial risk to all the taxpayers.

    Life is more than money? Yes. But the money is limited. Those who chose to smoke can not soak up all the money. Those who chose to avoid prenatal testing can not soak up all the money either.

  4. Nicole says:

    We should never take a human life because that person is a financial risk.

  5. FoolsGold says:

    Just about ALL risk assessment involves measuring the costs of saving lives and the resultant injuries and deaths as well as the avoided-cost factors and other uses to which those funds could be put.

    Many of our speed limits raise revenues but frustrate drivers and cost lives. Many of our safety devices for railroads cost millions per life saved.

    If the mother does not want to risk a Downs Syndrome child, I think that is her decision and if she bases it on money well alot of women put their needs before their children’s needs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s