Boston Globe Says Abortion for Unwanted Children Better Than Birth

National   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Jul 30, 2006   |   9:00AM   |   WASHINGTON, DC

Boston Globe Says Abortion for Unwanted Children Better Than Birth Email this article
Printer friendly page

by Mark Finkelstein
July 30, 2006

LifeNews.com Note: Mark Finkelstein lives in Ithaca, New York where he hosts "Right Angle," a local political talk show recently named ‘Best of the Best’ among local public-access shows. Finkelstien holds a J.D. from SUNY Buffalo and is also a graduate of Harvard University law college.

The unborn children of teenage mothers who don’t want them are better off dead. I don’t see any other way to interpret the Boston Globe’s editorial of this morning — Pregnant and Frightened.

The editorial was prompted by a recently-passed Senate bill prohibiting the transport of minors across state lines for purposes of an abortion in violation of parental consent or notification laws.

In the course of condemning the legislation, the Globe wrote:

"It is hard to see how forcing a frightened 15-year-old to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term will improve the life of the teen or her child."

It’s hard for the Globe to see how being permitted to live will improve the unborn child’s life? The Globe clearly seems to be concluding that death would be kinder for the unborn child.

Appalled? Can’t imagine the editorial getting worse? Read on:

"Unsurprisingly, teen mothers are far more likely to be unmarried, to drop out of school, and to live in poverty than women who delay pregnancy. Their babies suffer higher infant mortality rates."

The Globe expresses a tender concern about high infant mortality rates among children born to teenage mothers. The Globe’s preferred solution? The 100% mortality rate of abortion. This is liberal logic at its most grotesque.

ACTION: Respond to the Globe editorial by going to: https://www.boston.com/help/feedback