Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The Fifty Percent Solution | Main | BC NDP candidate should not have been forced to step down because of photos »

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Is abortion a mental illness?

I believe most mothers no matter the circumstance want to love their children. And that it is highly unusual for a mom to bear a child and not love that child. This is in part why abortion is an affront to women...to their dignity and personhood, because it denies what is natural and normal–sex, leading to pregnancy, leading to children.

So when a baby is born, and the mom immediately kills that baby of her own volition, what am I to understand?

I have a couple of different responses swimming around in my head (along with the cold virus that hit yesterday):

She should be blamed and take responsibility.

She must be mentally ill to do such a thing.

Or she is following the abortion-friendly culture we have? Five minutes before birth in a sanctified legal clinic and this would not be in the news.

(Cross-posted to ProWomanProLife)

Posted by Andrea Mrozek on April 22, 2009 in Crime | Permalink



Terry Schiavo was a vegetable. Her brain was mostly fluid at the time of her death. Her cerebral cortex and isocortex had completely deteriorated. This is well-documented by the autopsy.

I am not debating that she was alive. Plants are alive, and they don't think.

Religious pro-lifers seem to think it's a matter of opinion whether or not Terry was still "there" behind the shroud of the coma. But it's not. There is no physical evidence that persons who suffer complete loss of the the majority of brain tissue can recover. In fact, everything we know about the brain and neurology tells us the contrary; your thoughts, memories, personality, aspirations are in the cerebral cortex. And if that is destroyed, so are all those things.

Terry Schiavo's body may have been alive. But the person was dead.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-04-25 2:17:57 AM

The Schiavo case was horrific because regardless of whether Terri Schiavo was in a vegetative state, there were people who were willing to sustain her life and keep her alive - which is a right that every person has - and other people placed a premium on her death by claiming BOTH (and in a contradictory fashion) that she was incapable of conscious thought (or recovering such)and that it was only humane to let her die to end the "suffering".

With enough pain medication they could easily sustain her humanely without pain - for as long as people were willing to provide for her and keep her alive.

What they did by starving her to death and ceasing pallitive care was one of the most barbaric things I've seen.

Unless somebody has a living will or other legal instrment that specifically details when to end their life - the presumption should always be that they wish to live as long as they can.

Anything else is just guess work, and in anycase is insufficient to presume about or form a moral principle about.

So long as people are willing to keep somebody alive, even if they have lost the function of reason -- nobody should be deprived of that assistance.

Its like the difference between simply NOT doing anything to stop somebody from drowing... And actively doing something to prevent others from saving the drowing person.

While the former may in some (perhaps strange and weird) circumstances be the right thing to do - the latter is never justified.

Posted by: MW | 2009-04-25 3:59:50 AM

AT says:


The point, I think, AT, is that we have the capacity to determine what is well and good on its own terms. Penecillin is natural, as are the diseases it may eradicate. But the disease, however natural, must be seen as something bad which should be eradicated. Natural things can be bad or good, and there's no more wrong in correcting nature where she has erred than in correcting the body politic when it has.

Posted by: Charles Martin Cosgriff | 2009-04-25 6:55:08 AM

Some of the comparisons here are inappropriate. Terry Shiavo had no future, no chance for recovery, and no brain function. A five week old fetus has the whole world ahead of him/her.

An adult life might have value, but many have a negative worth. If you want to put a value on individual lives, things are going to get complicated, very quickly. You better hope I'm not the auditor. There'll be a lot of job opportunities available.

Posted by: dp | 2009-04-25 9:30:25 AM

dp: An adult life might have value, but many have a negative worth. If you want to put a value on individual lives, things are going to get complicated, very quickly. You better hope I'm not the auditor. There'll be a lot of job opportunities available.

I think it is precisely because we cannot know the exact value of human life that we must regard it as priceless, and as such, afford it tremendous dignity no matter in what exact state it may currently exist. For unfortunate souls like Terry Sciavo, we have no real choice but to presume, so long as she breathes on her own, that she is alive, and treat her with the dignity that commands.

BTW, before this gets dismissed as religious, I should like to point out that it is a philosophic and not a theological argument.

Posted by: Charles Martin Cosgriff | 2009-04-25 10:16:30 AM

http://www.saleairmax.com Air Max

Posted by: air max | 2009-10-14 2:41:39 AM

Only if immorality is a mental illness.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-14 6:44:24 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.