Science Proposes a Toast

Following up the post on God/pain, comes an answer to the dilemma in the Washington Post. The article is written by a woman who chose to abort her baby based on a diagnosis of Down Syndrome.

While I have no doubt there can be joys and victories in raising a mentally handicapped child, for me and for Mike, it's a painful journey that we believe is better not taken. To know now that our son would be retarded, perhaps profoundly, gives us the choice of not continuing the pregnancy. We don't want a life like that for our child, and the added worry that we wouldn't be around long enough to care for him throughout his life.

Apparently Science provides the answer when God fails us on the question of pain. Wells, Darwin, and all you worshipers of the Goddess Science--sound your trumpets. Why does a good God let bad things happen? The question no longer matters, because Science has overcome this problem. Science can help you avoid all pain. The author’s child would be retarded, so she ensures that the child (as well as the parents) will not have to suffer such pain. If a child may suffer, abort.

Now we can avoid this discussion about God altogether. For, you see, with science there is no problem with pain.

To the author's credit, the article continues. After the abortion, she does mourn her decision:

I woke up missing him, mourning the child we wouldn't have.

I wonder what Science would prescribe to this woman now. Seeking to avoid perceived suffering, she now must truly suffer. Yet she still doesn’t get it:

I'm sure pro-lifers don't give you the right to grieve for the baby you chose not to bring into the world (another euphemism, although avoiding the word "abortion'' doesn't take any sting out of the decision to have one). Only now do I understand how entirely personal the decision to terminate a pregnancy is and how wrong it feels to bring someone else's morality into the discussion.

Wrong. Pro-lifers give you the right (perhaps even the obligation?) to grieve after an abortion. But, after having an abortion and mourning the child she killed, the author concludes that it is wrong to bring in someone else’s (or an objective) morality into the discussion. I'm not sure that I follow. I suppose even Science can't repair this painful logic.