Matt Archbold graduated from Saint Joseph’s University in 1995. He is a former journalist who left the newspaper business to raise his five children. He writes for the Creative Minority Report.
The Dallas News ran a pretty darn scary editorial urging a hospital to remove life support from a pregnant woman.
For those unfamiliar, a Texas woman, Marlise Munoz, has been declared dead and is being kept alive by life support. The family, including her husband and parents, are suing to have life support removed. The problem is that the woman is pregnant.
There's a lot going on in the editorial but here's a key graph as to why the editorial board favors removing life support and allowing the baby to die:
The fetus still registers a heartbeat, although it’s unclear whether it also suffered the same brain-destroying oxygen deprivation that ended Muñoz’s life and whether additional, irreversible damage was inflicted by the electric shocks and drugs administered to revive Muñoz’s body.
They don't say that's a reason to support killing the child but let's face it, they put it in there for a reason. The thing is, they're not even saying the baby is disabled. They're just kinda' putting out there that hey, that baby MIGHT BE disabled and that's good enough for them.
But that's not even the real point. We know that they don't even really care whether the baby is disabled. That's just the icing they use to convince people that hey, that could be an imperfect baby, get 'em.
The editorial states that if you're for maintaining life support until the baby can be removed safely means that you view women as a "human incubator" or something. They say to do that "represents a perversion of motherhood and the natural life-death cycle." You've got to love when those calling for the killing of a child in the womb rant about a "perversion of motherhood."
But here's the thing. Keeping the baby alive honors motherhood. Mrs. Munoz decided to have the child. For those who declare their allegiance to a woman's choice, allowing that baby to be born honors the mother's choice. But as we all know, being pro-abortion has never been about choice.
The hospital is simply following the law in this case in that the law in Texas blocks doctors from denying "life-sustaining treatment" to pregnant patients. Now the family seems to be arguing that the patient's not alive so therefore doesn't qualify but that's ridiculous in that if the patient's not alive, what are we arguing about? The sentence that really jumps out at me from the editorial (there's many) is the one that says "there is not life to be sustained in Munoz's case." What? Are the editors at The Dallas News really arguing that the child in her womb is not alive? They admitted previously that the "fetus registers a heartbeat." I know that most pro-aborts will say that a fetus is definitely alive but only "potentially human." I'll say that this editorial from The Dallas News is definitely stupid. And potentially evil.
Here's the key thought for me. When we argue that life support should be removed it's because death is irreversible. It has ceased to be a treatment, it's just keeping someone alive through artificial means. If it were only temporary and the person could get better, that would be a different story, right? In this case, the baby is the one who requires life support and it is a temporary situation. In a few weeks, the baby can be born. The baby is currently at 21 weeks. I pray that Texas allows this child to live. I urge you to pray because that may be the only support this child receives.