A few years ago, UK physicist and cancer researcher David Robert Grimes with a smirking mug shot at, where else, The Guardian, sneeringly dismissed the science behind those who are against abortion. He wrote, among other things:

One of the most inflammatory arguments against abortion is rooted in the assertion that the foetus can feel pain, and that termination is therefore a brutal affair. This is extremely unlikely to be true. A foetus in the early stages of development lacks the developed nervous system and brain to feel pain or even be aware of their surroundings. The neuroanatomical apparatus required for pain and sensation is not complete until about 26 weeks into pregnancy. As the upper limit worldwide for termination is 24 weeks, and the vast majority of pregnancies are terminated well before this (most in the first 9 weeks in the UK), the question of foetal pain is a complete red herring. This is reflected in the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’s report on foetal pain, which concludes “… existing data suggests that cortical processing and therefore foetal perception of pain cannot occur before 24 weeks of gestation”.

His snarling dismissal of people’s concern for the pain that an unborn child can feel is now irrelevant, however. That line has been crossed, even as it is circumscribed by all the same conditionals and supposed safeguards that were originally used to describe the choice to have an abortion in the early days of Roe v. Wade.

Governor Ralph Northam – the head of the Commonwealth of Virginia and a pediatrician himself – said the following in an interview:

When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother with the consent of the physicians — more than one physician, by the way.

And then in the radio interview, he said this:

And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that is nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mothers.

Which means that a child is an accessory from the moment it’s conceived, according to this worldview. And you can always return the accessory if its quality is not to your liking. It will feel pain, it may even have been delivered and be resting there on the multifunctional hospital bed that its mother is also lying on. If they decide it is deformed or wrong somehow, the baby will quickly be put to death.

Of course, Northam’s staff is already qualifying his comments and giving standard excuse that they were taken out of context. Nonsense. Should Virginia’s and New York State’s laws become the new standard around America and elsewhere, then any child will always be a potentially unwanted entity in the law’s eyes who must be granted permission to live. A fallen little angel guilty of the sin of being alive with a wizened face, awaiting for approval to remain breathing.

But Northam’s comments are not generating much airtime in most of mainstream media. We don’t talk about this, only a few nods to the crazed reactions of those of us who would support those who believe we must try to provide succor and care for the unborn or recently born.

Alongside abortion-on-demand, as euthanasia enters the customs of one country after another descending down from the aged terminally ill to depressed teens, and as pain is either medicated or the pained person eliminated, we move one more step towards a rather dreadful singularity, where human life is only valid if it is both attractive and intelligent. The sick, muddled masses who are judged ignorant and wanting are to be pruned from our society, one by one, under the banner of diversity, choice, and enlightened evolution.

God help us all.

Comments