Leftists Want to Use “Sedation or Physical Restraint” to Force Teens to Have Abortions

In a pro-death agenda that makes the abortion industry’s claims abortion should be readily available and tax-funded look like a conservative political party’s platform, a new study from two people affiliated with the University of British Columbia wants those procedures to be mandatory, forced with drugs and physical restraints if necessary, for young girls who get pregnant.

A report at the Christian Institute reveals that Kimberley Brownlee, a teacher, and Alyssa Izatt, a student, are demanding, “in relation to children, we should be ‘pro-abortion.”

They want, in a paper in the Journal of Ethics, abortion “promoted” to those young girls who wish to have their babies, because that attitude is “antigirlism.”

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

Young girls being pregnant, they claim, should be seen “as a malady” and the adults in the room should “take steps to terminate it.”

Wildly, they have written in a fashion that appears serious, “A critic might balk at our contention that doctors should provide abortion care to a girl who has contrary preferences or an aversion to the procedure. Such a patient might interpret her pregnancy as a baby and feel love for it and a desire to be a mother. She might believe that by having an abortion she is killing her baby.”

Those situations, they contend might “require sedation or physical restraint.”

In the National Review, author and philosopher Wesley J. Smith said that reeks of a “totalitarian” rationale.

“The authors claim that abortion is always in the best interest of girls because of the many supposed harms of giving birth, mothering, or allowing the baby to be adopted. Failing to immediately abort costs girls their ‘carefreeness,’ don’t you know,” he said.

He called the attitude, and the fact it made it to publication, “deeply troubling.”

The contentions from Brownlee and Izatt, in fact, states, “In light of the physical, mental, social, and financial risks of child pregnancy and child mothering noted in Section III, a child’s present and future well-being is best served by terminating pregnancy as quickly as possible and, equally, not confronting the prospect of motherhood early in life. Her present well-being is promoted by abortion care, since it removes a substantial risk to her health. The physical demands of pregnancy, the mental turmoil, and the illness or injury that might result are costs we justifiably strive to protect children from enduring.”

They continued, “Furthermore, an abortion enables her to pursue her own interests since continuation of pregnancy disrupts the typical experiences of childhood. Pregnancy requires a child to take on adult responsibilities before either she is ready or she should be presumed to be ready, meaning that it shortens her childhood and forces her into an adult role prematurely.”

Their claims are in a article called “Justice for Girls: On the provision of abortion as adequate care,” in the University of Chicago Press Journals.

They claim a young girl’s “future well-being is also served by abortion care. Both giving up a baby for adoption and taking on motherhood radically shape the trajectory of a girl’s life. Motherhood in particular can close off many future options. As mentioned above, early childbearing increases the incidence of girls and young women having to abandon their education, resulting in cycles of poverty and worse family health outcomes. Girls who avoid these circumstances have more readily available potential futures to pursue as they develop into adulthood. With this framing in mind, abortion care clearly offers the best way to maintain an impregnated child’s options for her future.”

They argue for abortion to preserve the “carefreeness” of a girl.

They argue that any other perspective is “antigirlism.”

They claim, “The liberal proponent of women’s reproductive rights disregards girls’ vulnerabilities when she champions the right to choose, while the opponent of abortion denies girls the care to which they have a fundamental right as children. The calcified ‘pro-choice’ versus ‘pro-life’ binary overlooks that, in relation to children, we should be ‘pro-abortion.'”

The unborn baby is of no consequence, they claim.

“Caregivers have a moral duty to provide impregnated children with abortion care. There is no justification for sacrificing the interests of a vulnerable, protected person for the interests of another or potential other.”

LifeNews Note: This column originally appeared at WorldNetDaily.

The post Leftists Want to Use “Sedation or Physical Restraint” to Force Teens to Have Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.