In blog, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, viral

20131203-234817.jpg

Cross-posted from The Leading Edge blog.

Yesterday our courts handed down one of the most unjust and inhumane rulings ever seen in this country when a judged declared that a NZ mother and father have suffered a ‘personal injury’, and are entitled to compensation from ACC New Zealand, because they were not afforded the opportunity to abort their daughter who was born with spina bifida.

Regardless of the motivations of the parents in this case, who, according to media reports, took this court action to “to cover the costs of caring for their daughter”, this ruling is still fundamentally flawed and truly alarming in what it introduces into NZ law.

It now sets a legal precedent which declares that being denied the opportunity to kill an innocent human being before birth is an act which causes injury to the persons who would have procured the killing if they had been afforded the opportunity to do so. I wonder how long it will be before someone tries to test this new ruling to see if it applies to the killing of persons without disabilities prior to birth as well – or is it just those with spina bifida and Down syndrome who come in for such prejudicial rulings in the Brave New Zealand?

This ruling makes a mockery of NZ’s supposed commitment to human rights, and our, now rather hollow sounding, claim to be a country which doesn’t unjustly discriminate against persons with disabilities.

The simple fact is that yesterday’s ruling would not have even been thinkable if it weren’t for two pre-existing factors:

a. Legalized abortion

In a country where the state arbitrarily sanctions the killing of innocent human beings in the womb, and the majority of the population turn a blind eye to this injustice, we really shouldn’t be surprised to hear a judge now declaring that being denied the chance to kill your child in utero is actually a personal injury worthy of compensation.

b. The widespread and institutionalized practice of eugenic abortions

In a culture where persons with disability are regularly aborted simply because they are different to the rest of us, it’s hardly surprising to see that such a barbaric practice is now considered a good, while not being afforded the opportunity to abort a person with a disability is now considered an evil worthy of compensation.

This ruling should cause any truly humane Kiwi to start questioning what has gone so badly wrong in NZ. Sadly most of us are like the proverbial frog in the pot who is slowly being boiled to death and who has become desensitized to the gravity of the situation going on around it.

As a father of three daughters I think that one of the most appalling aspects of this case for me was this one:

“She said she was not ashamed of saying she would have aborted her daughter.

“In no way are we saying we don’t want her now, ” she said.

“It would have been a very difficult decision – not something taken lightly – but with the information we would have had at the time, had they given it to us, that’s the decision we would have made.”

The mother said she wanted to be able to tell her daughter that she did everything she could to guarantee a stable life for her.”

There is simply no reasonable way of reconciling the claim “I love my daughter” with the statement “I definitely would have killed her before birth if I had been given the chance”.

This would be like me saying to one of my girls “daddy really loves you, but if I’d been given the opportunity I definitely would have abandoned you at birth”.

The sad fact is that a lot of people on talkback radio are probably going to claim that this ruling is a commonsense one (that’s generally what happens when you live in a majorly deceived culture of death). Then, when the next child abuse case makes headlines, they’ll be ringing up the exact same talkback shows to bemoan the lack of action against the abuse of innocent and vulnerable children in NZ.

One of the serious problems we now face in the West is that, because we have embraced such gravely contradictory and logically deficient ideologies about personal rights and freedoms, we no longer seem capable of seeing the alarming nature of events such as yesterday’s legal ruling.

One of the inconvenient truths of the Nazi euthanasia programme, which killed an estimated 200,000 persons with disabilities, and other ‘undesirable’ traits, was the fact that it was actively endorsed by some German parents of disabled children. In fact, it was the father of a disabled child, who wrote to Hitler in 1938 to beg for the ‘right’ of his son to be killed by euthanasia, who is credited with being the impetus for the Nazi child euthanasia programme in the first place.

The horrific atrocity that was the German euthanasia programme would go on to provide the template for the Nazi ‘Final Solution’, where the Nazis extended the category of the ‘unfit’ to include the Jews, Gypsies and others. The architects of the Final Solution even adopted the gas chamber and crematoria that were specifically designed for the German euthanasia programme, and staff from the euthanasia programme took on prominent roles in the Nazi death camps which killed approx. 6 millions Jews.

I think the most appropriate response to yesterday’s ruling is found in the following video, where Adele and Paul share their story about rejecting abortion for their son with spina bifida, and how that wee boy is now shaping their lives for the better:

 

Recommended Posts
Contact Us

Send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Not readable? Change text.