The website headline says this: “IVF baby lost in horror car smash”. And the subtitle reads as follows: “An unborn baby girl has been killed and her mother’s dream of starting a family through IVF shattered in a horror car crash.”
Indeed, it is the lead story of the Herald Sun website, and the title link there is stronger yet: “Lost IVF angel”. The article begins with these words:
“The 33-year-old woman is a well-regarded teacher who recently moved back to Victoria from interstate to raise her baby, which she conceived through IVF, the Herald Sun has been told. But her life has been thrown into turmoil by the senseless smash in East Bentleigh that killed her 34-week-old unborn daughter, who becomes the state’s 290th road fatality for 2009. ‘We have lost a little one who didn’t have a chance because of someone’s silly actions,’ said the baby’s grandfather, John, who has been staying by his heartbroken daughter in hospital. ‘It’s too traumatic. It’s a horrible thing. She was my granddaughter,’ he added.”
This is certainly a tragic case, and our prayers go to the grieving family. But I am curious about one thing. Here we have talk of an angel, a daughter, a granddaughter, and a baby girl. But haven’t we been told for decades now that there are no such things? Is this not simply a clump of cells? A handful of tissue? The property of the mother? A woman’s right to choose?
Now I happen to fully agree with the way the newspaper has described this lost baby girl. She is indeed a daughter and granddaughter. But why are they normally described in non-human terms, especially by the pro-abortion lobby. Such babies are still fair game for the late-term abortions.
Indeed, the late term abortionists can with full legal backing kill a baby at this age. So why is there not an outcry when he does this? Why is he not regarded as a child killer? Why can he make a huge profit in performing D&X abortions on the unborn child late in the third trimester?
But the pro-abortionist might reply: “Yes, but this was an older foetus”. Well, yes, she had only another month or so to go before birth. But if a “foetus” can be called a baby girl and a daughter at 34 weeks gestation, then why not at 33? Why not at 32? Or 31? Or 30?
Indeed, why draw such arbitrary lines to begin with? Why do 34 weeks make an unborn baby human and precious? Why not earlier? The truth is, from the moment of conception, all the genetic information is already there in the new life found in the mother.
From day one we have a completely unique and brand new individual. All that is needed is the nutrition and shelter of the mother’s womb for the baby to grow and develop. The baby does not take on new properties or features. They already exist in nascent form in the young embryo.
So if we are to rightly grieve over the loss of life when a 34-week baby dies, then let us be consistent, and grieve throughout the entire nine-month period. And if we are to be consistent here, then we must seriously consider why we “civilised societies” allow babies to be killed at any stage of pregnancy, even right up to birth.
Indeed, in other cases involving car accidents in which an unborn baby has been killed, courts in both the US and Australia have recognised the humanity and personhood of the baby, even at ages younger than 34 weeks. So our laws are quite schizophrenic at this point, and some clarification is urgently needed.
As mentioned, this is a tragic case. All cases of unborn babies dying are grievous and to be avoided. But considering that 100,000 unborn babies are killed every year in Australia in our abortion mills, why not apply some concern here as well? Are not all unborn babies of intrinsic worth and value? Or only those killed in car crashes?
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/lost-ivf-angel/story-e6frf7jo-1225814241910
[676 words]