Brian Jenkins

Frequently I hear it falsely stated that aborting a child is preferable to having the child live in an abusive environment.

For example, yesterday, this justification made its appearance in two forms. First, as Charlotte and I were setting up at the 40 Days for Life vigil site, a young male in his mid-twenties, awaiting the traffic signal to change and be on his way, asked if either one of us had grown up in a good family. By good family, I understood him to mean one free of abuse. In syllogistic form, this reads:

• A quality of life unbecoming human beings is justification for abortion.
• An abusive home is a quality of life unbecoming human beings.
• Therefore, an abusive home is justification for abortion.

Second, yesterday’s Journal de Montreal ran a story on the increase in cases at the provincial youth protection agency – a.k.a., the DPJ. The article is entitled “Forte hausse des signalements” – “A Sharp Increase in Reporting” and is available here.

I perused the article carefully, looking for evidence which would justify abortion. Three case studies were noted; these are fodder that abortion advocates use in their logic.

This is warped logic for several reasons.

First, as ads for mutual funds advise, future performance is not guaranteed by past behaviour, or something like that. One simply does not know the future, other than God. So, to predict the fate of the unborn is folly.

Second, the first premise is not true. Quality of life is a highly subjective evaluation. A case in point concerns children with Down's syndrome of whom 95% are aborted. The motion picture “Trisomie 21 / Défi Pérou” is one of many instances that show the dignity and value Down's children.

Yes, abusive environments are highly undesirable but to consign a child a death sentence on account of his family is grossly misplaced justice.