Time Immortal

Dr. Andre Lalonde is worried:

Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Ottawa, worries that [Sarah Palin]’s now renowned decision may cause abortions in Canada to decline as other women there and elsewhere opt to follow suit.

Because obviously, it’s a WRETCHED AND TERRIBLE THING that Canadian women opt not to engage in eugenics by targeting for abortion those unborn babies which test positive for genetic defects after blood screenings and amniocentesis, both of which may not give accurate results in the first place.

He says not every woman is prepared to deal with the consequences of Down babies, who have developmental delays, some physical difficulties and often a shortened lifespan.

I think Ms. Lucas says it best:“Just, WOW…You know, I was just thinking, not every woman is prepared to deal with the consequences of BABIES IN GENERAL, some of whom have developmental delays and other problems. Abort! Abort! Abort!”

George Jonas, not exactly known for his pro-life stance (if I recall correctly), said something interesting at the end of his most recent article: “So close to power with a woman so far removed from every reason for which feminists would wish to exercise it! The matriarchy feels betrayed. “Sadly, this election has become all about the rights of the unborn, and not about the rights of the born,” a correspondent wrote to me. Well, I don’t know: The born can at least vote and write letters to the editor. The unborn can only kick, squirm, and wonder whether Mommy grants them vacuum suction or life.

As an ex-fetus, in this predicament I’d like a pitbull on my side.”

And it’s worth mentioning Ace’s turn of phrase as well:“Hmmm… their “choices” will be reduced by their choice of a choice you obviously don’t approve of.”

Too true.

Dr. Lalonde frets that the example of Sarah Palin — and hers is a good example, to be sure — may cause more women to opt to keep their babies instead of choosing to abort them. Why should he care? If it’s really about women having “choice,” then is not one choice as good as the other? Is not the choice to keep the baby every bit as valid as the choice not to? Ah, but the doctor protests: the women might not be ready for the challenge of raising a disabled child. But so what? What does readiness have to do with it? I could have sworn the issue was concerned solely with choice, not readiness. If it’s really about women having “choice,” then can we really say that it matters if a woman chooses something for which she may not be entirely ready?

And if Dr. Lalonde insists that women must make informed choices, then would he support legislation mandating that abortion clinics provide information on alternatives to the procedure (e.g. Adoption services, parental support groups)? Would he support legislation mandating that prior to obtaining an abortion, young girls must seek parental permission and counselling? Would he support legislation mandating that prior to obtaining an abortion, women must view and/or read reference material about the development of the unborn child, and that they must be presented with images of the results of abortion as well?

Of course, it is unlikely that the doctor would support such things. So we must ask again: why his objection? Why does it matter if fewer women choose abortion?

As usual, Mark Shea has an excellent take on the matter:: “Golly, who could foresee that somebody who profits from death would want to have more death to profit from? And who could possibly have imagined that those who target a particular population for murder would come to hate that population in order to convince itself that the murders are justified and they aren’t committing grave evil? And who could have foreseen that somebody who defies this murderous wisdom and chooses to love a baby with Down’s instead of kill him would become a national lightning rod for all the guilt, shame, fear, and rage that comes from making this appallingly wicked choice? And who could have predicted that the very people who profit from the exploitation of this evil would continue encourage the hatred and tell soothing lies on behalf of the evil?”

Finally, the Shaidle suggests sending Dr. Lalonde pictures of your unaborted Down’s child, whom you very much love.

alalonde@sogc.com
phone extension 227

The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada
780 Echo Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5R7

Tel: 613-730-4192
or 1-800-561-2416
Fax: 613-730-4314

I’d suggest sending him pictures of your unaborted child, period, O Reader.