Over a month ago I sent a letter into the Seattle Times responding to one of the local news columnists. Unfortunately I had to condense my original letter from 800 words down to 200 words. So below I have included my full letter. To read the column first you can follow this link – "Having to Make this Choice." To read more about my friends and their little girl please visit the Noelle Hermes Foundation. I just want to encourage folks to engage in the culture that surrounds in a way that may show inconsistencies where eventually the light of the gospel may be proclaimed. Ultimately the gospel is central but there are times where walls need to be broken down as well.

To the Seattle Times:
Insinuating Infanticide

This letter is in response to the column written by Nicole Brodeur titled, "Having to make this Choice." Nicole Brodeur's column was on the recent Supreme Court decision on "partial-birth" abortion. Although I am aware, and she is quite clear, on her stance on abortion this column seemed to sicken me with the logical outworking of what she was promoting through an emotional argument that takes anyone down the slippery slope of abhorrence at the reality that may come. I think that the column is pretty clear that she is not really promoting anything purposely but as a columnist she is leading people, who read her column, through persuasion.

If anyone were to recall this column, Nicole uses a couple that had a planned pregnancy. This couple, then 22 weeks into the pregnancy, found out about a malformation in the brain of their baby. Then here is the crux of the column, does a couple end the life of an unborn child in the womb rather than agonize over the struggle of life for the child outside the womb? The linkage between a diagnosis of brain malfunction of an unborn child to that of a child born critically ill is clear. Then in this column we see that abortion is the better choice. Why would parents go through the agony of seeing their child struggle through "heroic measures" to attain life then ultimately die?

Pause for a minute here. What has just happened? There is a major shift taking place here. We would rather kill the unborn child than give the opportunity of life and letting nature take its course? The link was already made, that the option was, "if death was soon after birth what difference would it make if death happened in the womb?" The couple in the column grieves their child even though they made the decision to extinguish life in the womb. Where do we go next with this type of thinking? Do we start jumping on the bandwagon of Dr. Singer (professor at Princeton) that promotes the option of killing babies after they are born (infanticide) because they will die anyway or they are a major inconvenience to the parents and society? This all seems like a decision of convenience for the parents apart from the thought of sanctity of life. It seems that the slippery slope is that if parents are able to end life of a child in the womb because of the possibility of a critically ill life, then there is nothing stopping parents from killing their child outside the womb anywhere up to 9 months after birth because of a critical illness that may pervade a child.

Close friends of mine in California had just delivered their third child in late 2000. Little did they know that their daughter would have a rare skin disorder called Epidermolysis Bullosa, which basically means the skin does not adhere to the body along with other major complications internally. The mortality rate the first year is 87%. Besides the agony of losing their child along with the million dollar medical bill why didn't they just extinguish life rather than live with the burden and loss of their little one? This is the option being promoted. Fortunately they did not and she is still alive to this day. She will never have a life normal to that of the average American girl but the parents and community are glad to be blessed that she is still around. There is something about the society promoted by Dr. Singer and even suggested by Nicole Brodeur that is very saddening. The ramifications of enabling choices to preserve convenience and the pre-emptive strike of avoiding agony of lost loved ones may be extremely damaging to our society, if not already. The thought that my friend's little girl along with countless others would not have made it past their first birthdays, is astonishing. May we think past the pragmatics of today to the peaceful world we are suppose to drive towards. Where would we draw the line? When does the topic shift to euthanasia of burdened elderly people or to that of any handicap that puts a burden on society? This sounds all to similar to the paradigm that drove the fascist regimes of World War II.

Thanks,
Gary Shavey

The condensed version to fit under 200 word guidline:

Insinuating Infanticide

Nicole Brodeur's column on "partial-birth" abortion sickened me. The crux: does a couple end the life of an unborn child in the womb rather than agonize over the struggle of life for the child outside the womb? The linkage between a diagnosis of brain malfunction to that of a child born critically ill is clear in the column and abortion is the answer. Should parents go through the agony of seeing their child struggle through "heroic measures" in order to live?

The slippery slope, one would rather kill the unborn child than give the opportunity of life and letting nature take its course? The link was already made, that the option was, "if death was soon after birth what difference would it make if death happened in the womb?" What next? Do we join Dr. Singer (professor at Princeton) that promotes the option of killing babies after they are born (infanticide) because they will die anyway or they are a major inconvenience to the parents and society? What's next euthanasia? The mentally ill (adult or adolescent)? These sound all too similar to the paradigm that drove the fascist regimes of World War II.

Thanks,
Gary Shavey