Why A Continuing Resolution Puts America on a Suboptimal Path
There's One Figure in WaPo/ABC News' Poll on Biden That's a Potential Election...
Photos: Texas National Guards Defends Southern Border From Illegal Immigrants
Joe Biden Hates You (Hate Him Back)
Biden-Migration: More Aliens Than 32 States
The Democrats Will Never Do That in America!
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 184: Psalm 27 - For Those Who Need...
The Irony of Democrat Bob Menendez Indictment On Bribery Charges
Democrats Demand Joe Biden to be Given Credit For a ‘Successful’ Economy
Zelensky Cozy Ups With the World’s Richest Elites After Begging the U.S. for...
McCarthy Backtracks on Promise to Strip Ukraine Funding from Spending Bill
What’s the Matter with Latin America, and the Media?
Why We'll 'Definitely' Be Talking About Trump's Heartbeat Comments for Months
The Message of Deion Sanders
My Loyalty Is to the Lord, Not to a Political Candidate or Party

Washington Post Editor Advocates Eugenics Claiming It's Her Right to Kill Babies With Down Syndrome

Washington Post deputy editorial page editor, Ruth Marcus, penned an op-ed yesterday defending the “right” to selectively kill babies inside the mother’s womb who have been diagnosed with Down syndrome. The piece is filled superfluous nonsense that matters neither here, nor there in the main point of her argument. Marcus is not defending killing babies due to perceived disabilities, but rather asserting her belief that a woman should be able to kill the baby inside her womb at anytime and for whatever reason, without question. 


“There is a new push in antiabortion circles to pass state laws aimed at barring women from terminating their pregnancies after the fetus has been determined to have Down syndrome. These laws are unconstitutional, unenforceable — and wrong,” Marcus starts off. 

She then goes on to say that it’s a difficult subject to write about because “there are so many parents who have — and cherish — a child with Down syndrome.” 

Then, rather perversely, Marcus pauses to mention how cute the new Gerber baby is. “Many people with Down syndrome live happy and fulfilled lives. The new Gerber baby with Down syndrome is awfully cute.”

“I have had two children; I was old enough, when I became pregnant, that it made sense to do the testing for Down syndrome,” she writes. “I can say without hesitation that, tragic as it would have felt and ghastly as a second-trimester abortion would have been, I would have terminated those pregnancies had the testing come back positive. I would have grieved the loss and moved on.” 

Marcus then provides a handful of hotly debated and cherry picked  statistics over the mental cognition of humans with Down syndrome and their supposed happiness. Harkening back to what she would have done if one her kids had Down syndrome, Marcus defends her option to kill her child by saying essentially, "everybody else would do it."


"I’m going to be blunt here: That was not the child I wanted. That was not the choice I would have made. You can call me selfish, or worse, but I am in good company. The evidence is clear that most women confronted with the same unhappy alternative would make the same decision," Marcus states.

But, really none of that matters. To her, it is not about Down syndrome. It is 100% about the desires and wants of the mother, irregardless of the child she carries. 

"Which brings us to the Supreme Court. North Dakota, Ohio, Indiana and Louisiana passed legislation to prohibit doctors from performing abortions if the sole reason is because of a diagnosis of Down syndrome; Utah’s legislature is debating such a bill."

"These laws are flatly inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling, reaffirmed in 1992, that “it is a constitutional liberty of the woman to have some freedom to terminate her pregnancy.” Of the woman. As U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt concluded in striking down the Indiana law in September, the high court’s determination “leaves no room for the state to examine, let alone pro­hibit, the basis or bases upon which a woman makes her choice.”


"Technological advances in prenatal testing pose difficult moral choices about what, if any, genetic anomaly or defect justifies an abortion. Nearsightedness? Being short? There are creepy, eugenic aspects of the new technology that call for vigorous public debate," writes Ruth, alluding to the fact that it possible that it is wrong for a mother to kill her offspring simply because the child could have traits that she does not want. 

Marcus ignores that science is proving that viable human life begins earlier and earlier than previously thought. She still maintains that it's her right, no matter what, to be able to have an abortion. 

"But in the end, the Constitution mandates — and a proper understanding of the rights of the individual against those of the state underscores — that these excruciating choices be left to individual women, not to government officials who believe they know best," Ruth asserts. 

Under that logic, abortion should be available from conception until the time of birth. And, it should be perfectly acceptable for a mother to practice eugenics by carefully choosing which child of desired traits she allows to live and which she kills. Marcus, writing for a mainstream paper such as the Washington Post, highlights the extremism that pro-abortion individuals have taken their message. For conservatives, "in the end," the argument is not about what kind of life a Down syndrome baby may lead, it is about at what point will society stop allowing the murder of innocents simply because the mother does not want their child. 


Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos