Recently a U.K judge ordered a mentally challenged woman to abort her child against the wishes of the woman herself, her family, and her caretaker. The decision was, mercifully, reversed – but the original sentence was still handed out by a U.K. judge.
Every single thing I said in that first sentence is entirely true. It isn’t even exaggerated. This is about as cut and dry a case of a Satanically evil judge ordering a mother execute her own, innocent child as can possibly exist. Yet for some reason every time I see the issue discussed it’s always described as a “Hard case”.
You can see where I’m going with this, of course. As the argument goes, the family is not competent enough to care for the child (in the opinion of the judge), so of course it would be better to kill the child instead. Why not adoption? Well, let’s have the judge speak:
Allowing the child to be born and then removed from the woman’s home and placed into foster care or adoption would be against the woman’s own interests, the judge concluded.
“I think [the woman] would suffer greater trauma from having a baby removed [from her care],” Lieven said, because “it would at that stage be a real baby.”
Lieven clarified that the pregnancy “although real to [the woman], doesn’t have a baby outside her body she can touch.”
Ignoring the fact that this is the opinion expressed by a complete stranger and flatly denied by all of the people actually closest to the situation, do you see what else is going on here? This decision is being driven entirely by emotion.
The facts of the case are that a child is going to be killed, the family does not want the child to be killed, and the judge is ordering it done. The judge is ignoring all of those facts, particularly the humanity of the child. As she says:
“I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society’s views of termination,” Lieven explained, arguing that her decision is in the best interest of the woman.
Whether or not the child is a human being, a basic biological fact easily verifiable through both logic and science, is left totally unaddressed in favor of whether or not the mother is, not in any physical danger, but possibly going to be made really, really sad. The reason for this is obvious – as soon as that aspect is considered, the entire case collapses into a farce. Logic, reason, and science be damned: It’s all about the feels, and not the judge’s feels, but the judge’s opinion about how sad somebody else is probably going to feel in the future.
This is not hard. I didn’t need to come up with a complex philosophical argument to work this out. This is obviously evil, Satanically, ghoulishly evil, and that anybody is pretending otherwise – pretending it’s “a difficult situation for everybody involved” – is terrifying.
The good news here is that the decision was overturned on appeal – but don’t get too cocky. Instead of an apology for the gross miscarriage of decency and justice that lead to this point and the immediate arrest and jailing of the judge who handed out the original decision, we get this:
According to Press Association reports, the judges said they would issue a full explanation of their decision at a later date, but that the circumstances of the case were “unique.”
Ah yes, the relevant point here: “Unique!” Not evil, heinous, disgusting, or a dark moment in the history of Britain. It was “unique”.
I’m sure they found it to be a very hard case. Myself, not so much.