As technology progresses, rationalizing away the destruction of the unborn becomes a more complicated task.

In the not-too-distant past, humans were in the dark about the gestational period. Life’s beginnings were a complex mystery. This, perhaps, made it easier to choose abortion when faced with real-life dilemmas of time, money, and inconvenience.

Out of sight, out of mind.

Now, medical advancements shine much light on the beautiful and sacred time each new life spends in the womb. Every individual is a gift with characteristics set in stone at the time of conception. From that point on, they grow into who they were meant to be as their own unique DNA dictates.

Last year, it was reported that Iceland was on its way to “eradicating” Down Syndrome from its society. I suppose the term “eradicate” is much easier to digest than “killing off anyone with the genetic disorder trisomy 21 while still in the womb.” When we think of eradication, we think of something like smallpox, a deadly virus that was considered globally destroyed in 1980. We don’t use the same terminology when discussing denying human life the chance to exist outside of the womb.

Iceland and Down Syndrome. Hitler and the Jews. It’s just eradicating the bad, right?

Thankfully as a whole, the United States isn’t too keen on killing off those with disabilities just yet. That’s not to say it doesn’t happen. Prenatal testing for Down Syndrome, though it is not even close to being fool-proof, may persuade a woman to end her pregnancy through abortion. A future with a child whose mental capacity will never be much is unacceptable to some. They’d rather “mercifully” kill their offspring than allow them a life of imperfection.

This is the stomach-churning truth.

Speaking of nausea-inducing honesty, a recent column in the op-ed section of The Washington Post promoted the very idea of mercy killing.

Ruth Marcus, the self-described mother of “two high-quality individuals” (who were lucky to make it out of her womb, apparently) wrote of how she would have definitely aborted a baby with Down Syndrome. You know, because women’s liberation and all.

I have had two children; I was old enough, when I became pregnant, that it made sense to do the testing for Down syndrome…I can say without hesitation that, tragic as it would have felt and ghastly as a second-trimester abortion would have been, I would have terminated those pregnancies had the testing come back positive. I would have grieved the loss and moved on.

If you believe that abortion is equivalent to murder, the taking of a human life, then of course you would make a different choice. But that is not my belief, and the Supreme Court has affirmed my freedom to have that belief and act accordingly.

Oh, look. Ruth believes that legality equals morality.

I’m going to be blunt here: That was not the child I wanted. That was not the choice I would have made. You can call me selfish, or worse, but I am in good company. The evidence is clear that most women confronted with the same unhappy alternative would make the same decision.

Selfish doesn’t begin to describe this woman and her kind.

Who are we to determine what lives are worth living? Who are we to say that impaired function, mentally or physically, results in a life that means nothing? The real problem that Ruth has with the thought of an imperfect child is not the infant itself, but her own lowered expectations. The idealization of motherhood wherein one births and nurtures an exceptional being often smacks head-on into reality. Life isn’t a fairytale.

For those like Ms. Marcus, hardships must be avoided at all cost. If a defective child comes along, they must be eradicated. We should never love and raise one who falls short in our eyes…even before birth.

She ends the piece rather ironically by worrying about how far designer babies and eugenics might take us, all the while not including herself in the category of the slaphappy and Hitleresque, and ultimately concluding that LEGALITY IS MORALITY, GUYS.

Technological advances in prenatal testing pose difficult moral choices about what, if any, genetic anomaly or defect justifies an abortion. Nearsightedness? Being short? There are creepy, eugenic aspects of the new technology that call for vigorous public debate. But in the end, the Constitution mandates…that these excruciating choices be left to individual women, not to government officials who believe they know best.

Do her children know how close they came to death? Hopefully, neither of her offspring will become useless and deficient as a result of injury or illness. If so, those then-useless souls will absolutely break her heart.

It’s mind-boggling that in the age of “tolerance” when we’re supposed to show more compassion to our fellow humans, pro-aborts become more radical. They don’t shy away from telling us who they think should have breath and who shouldn’t. Always, their arguments boil down to, “the law says I can, so you shouldn’t question it.”

As they spew this abject discrimination, science will continue to blaze new trails of discovery and observance allowing for an even deeper look into the miracle of life, the very thing the pro-abort movement seeks to deny to others.

Through it all, one truth remains: every life is precious.