Abortion because of child’s disability

Same question for CNN reporter

And another thing (see article below).  Let’s say your lovely precious child hurts themselves on the swing, a quick unpredictable entanglement or fall such that severe but not life-ending disability ensues.  Perhaps due to metal fatigue or chance event. You didn’t want that to occur. Nobody wants disability for their child. What are you going to do. It is the same logical question and should have the same answer for the parents and the “medical community” engendered by legitimizing abortion for “disability”.

Via LifeSitenews

CNN host shocked on air that parents might not want to kill disabled children

 June 24, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — A CNN host repeatedly questioned a guest in a recent on-air exchange on why families shouldn’t be allowed to abort their unborn children for being disabled.

Alisyn Camerota, anchor of CNN’s morning show New Day, seemed genuinely perplexed during her interview with Indiana attorney general Curtis Hill about why anyone would want a family to “have to have” a disabled child. The interview occurred one day after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned part of a 2016 Indiana law banning abortion based on a child’s race, sex, or disability in late May.

Specifically questioning the aspect of the law banning abortion based on an unborn child’s disability, Camerota pressed Hill in an emphatic, dramatic tone, seeming at a loss, as though such an abortion ban were inconceivable.

“I’m just curious about that one,” she said. “Why, why would you want a family to have to have a child with a severe disability?”

Indiana’s attorney general remained measured as he clarified that the matter at hand was the right of the unborn child not to be the object of discrimination based on his disability (or for race).

“Well, the issue that the general assembly faced was not with regard to the question you pose,” Hill replied. “It’s the question of the rights and consideration of the unborn child in terms of discriminatory actions of eliminating that opportunity at life.”

“Making a decision based solely on race or disability certainly is a discriminatory practice,” he said. “And no decision in terms of whether or not to have a child should be based on that solely. And that’s what the general assembly chose to do in its ban.”

Camerota responded to Hill with a quick and murmured “yeah,” then continued in the line of questioning with her seemingly baffled demeanor.

“But that confuses me,” she said. “Because as you know there are lots of terminations of pregnancies based on the fact that there are severe abnormalities of a fetus. And so why would you take away that choice from a family?”

Hill persisted steadily in explaining that the issue is the morality of aborting a child because the child has a disability.

“Well it’s not a matter of taking away that choice,” he told Camerota. “It’s a matter of making a decision solely on the basis of not wanting a child because the child doesn’t have a particular characteristic.”

Hill then expounded on how many families have accepted disabled children and that the children have had worthwhile lives.

“We have certainly examples every day of children who appear to have disabilities or concerns or problems, prenatal, that are born and live very productive lives and families who support those children,” he said.

“Yeah,” came Camerota’s response, seemingly incredulous, before Hill told her again, “So it’s a matter of whether or not it’s appropriate to use that as a sole basis.” 

The exchange between Camerota and Hill was shared on Twitter the day of the broadcast and picked up later in a Live Action report.

Children with prenatal diagnoses such as Down syndrome or a fetal anomaly deeming them “incompatible with lifeare aborted at high rates worldwide. Doctors are often quick to presume that abortion is desired, suggest abortion, and even pressure parents to abort in these scenarios, even though children can often defy these diagnoses.

However, countless families accepting of life in these instances have testified that an adverse prenatal diagnosis does not diminish the sanctity of a child’s life, frequently expressing gratitude for the gift of their children even when the child’s life is brief in length. Many families who have a child with Down syndrome have given witness to the fact that they live full lives filled with joy, as do the individuals themselves.

The Supreme Court issued a May 28 ruling upholding the part of the 2016 pro-life Indiana law requiring humane disposal of fetal remains, while also allowing a lower court ruling to stand that had struck down the law’s ban on abortions based on the child’s race, sex, or disability.

CNN’s hosts have displayed a bias in favor of abortion in the past.   . . .

This entry was posted in UNCATEGORIZED. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Abortion because of child’s disability

  1. DLH says:

    FOX certainly lost a giant intellect when Alisyn Camarota chose to leave that network to join CNN. She and former co-anchor Chris Cuomo made an extraordinary team…”The Really Dumb And The Even Dumber”!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *