The Danger of Saving a Child’s Life

Somewhere around Twitter, I saw somebody complain that people are spreading "lies" about Virginia Democrats.  The on-point response from somebody else (paraphrasing):  "People are spreading direct quotes."

Even if I could somehow adjust for the fact that I agree with his views on abortion and human life, I think I would still struggle to understand how a story like that of Argentinian doctor Leandro Rodriguez Lastra could fail to spark cognitive dissonance among supporters of abortion:

Rodríguez is the head of the department of gynecology at the Pedro Moguillansky Hospital in Cipoletti. In May 2017, he treated a 19-year-old woman who was suffering severe pain due to ingesting misoprostol, the first of a two-part abortion pill regimen, which had been administered by an abortion group.

The doctor confirmed that the woman was almost 23 weeks pregnant and the baby weighed more than 1 lb. 2 oz., so in conjunction with the medical team and the hospital board, he decided not to terminate the pregnancy.

Rodríguez stabilized the patient and when the baby reached 35 weeks gestation, labor was induced. Days later, the baby was adopted and will soon be two years old.

This is in the news, right now, because Rodriguez faces two years in prison for the act of saving two lives.  One of the two wanted him to finish the job of killing the other, which she had started.

How — How? — could anybody think of that now-two-year-old child and think to him or her self, “This doctor must be punished because that child is alive”?  Is the child Damian, the Antichrist?

Of course it’s not this specific child.  Rather the motivation is to make of Dr. Rodriguez an example, so that doctors’ desire to save lives cannot disrupt the principle of infanticide — or, one step closer to the higher principle, complete sexual liberty.

Whether the focus is the child or the doctor, however, a society that sees either as a danger requiring punishment could not have a clearer need for self reflection.



Quantcast