Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!



    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    News you can use: parents of disabled children feel enriched

    By Theblogprof, Section News
    Posted on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 08:14:49 AM EST
    Tags: abortion, Palin (all tags)

    One of the more ghoulish arguments for abortion is that children deemed in utero to be unable to live a "normal" life shouldn't be allowed to live. This includes diagnoses for especially Down syndrome, and also for other conditions such as spina bifida, anencephaly, Klinefelter or Turner's syndrome, and the list goes on and on. This is becoming the new form of eugenics where those deemed "undesirable" are simply terminated. Recall that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger (or am I thinking Ruth Bader Ginsburg?), a true disciple of Molech, was a eugenics supporter and started her organization for the express purpose of killing off minorities. Especially black people. That continues to this day as Planned Parenthood butcher shops are propped up not in well-off suburbs but rather minority urban settings. Abortions based on defects, no matter the uncertainty (not that that matters anyway), is being mainstreamed by pro-aborts as "compassionate." Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are the abortion rates for babies diagnosed in utero with the following:
    Down syndrome: 90%
    Spina bifida: 70%
    anencephaly: 80%
    Klinefelter or Turner's syndrome: 58%
    One of my childhood friends has had a baby with Down syndrome a few years back now. Initially, it was devastating to them. But the baby girl is 6 years old now and is nothing short of a joy to be around. She has, by their own admission, enriched their lives. In fact, one of the secrets that pro-aborts don't want you to know is that children with disabilities tend to enrich the lives of parents far more than they burden them. Last week, I wrote a post about Rick and Dick Hoyt, who do marathons together with one caveat...

    More below the fold...

    (Chicken Soup For The Soul: A Father's Amazing Love (and example #8,897,234 on why I'm pro-life)):

    Keep in mind that  Rick was deemed to be not worth living by a doctor after he was born with his handicap due to the umbilical cord being wrapped around his neck. Not only Dick Dick tell the doc to stick his prognosis where the sun don't shine, but Rick ended up savings his dad's life (read the whole story in my prior post). Dick's life was enriched tremendously because of his decision. The same is true for fathers and mothers with Down syndrome babies, and children with other disorders. Try telling the parents of these children that they should have been aborted:

    Another great video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_-P4t2jR1g. (no embed feature) Yet there are many people in the medical community that want to do just that. Probably the most famous Down syndrome baby in recent years is Trig Palin, the son of Alaska's former governor and vice presidential candidate (in all honesty, I pulled the lever last fall for Palin, not McCain). Trig's condition was deemed by the liberal elite as a "burden on society." From STACLU back in September 2008: Trig Palin is a burden to society and should have been aborted.

    As everyone in the United States knows, Sarah Palin found out early in her pregnancy that her son would have Down's Syndrome.  Rather than aborting Trig, she went through with the pregnancy and now has a five-month-old beautiful baby boy.  Even if you are pro-abortion, it's a good story, right?  Every woman has the right to "choose", as they like to say.  Except you're supposed to choose what liberals tell you to choose.

    Provenzo isn't the first to suggest Trig should have been aborted.  But he is the latest, and here's some excerpts from his disgusting column:

    Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin's decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)--a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.

    A parent has a moral obligation to provide for his or her children until these children are equipped to provide for themselves. Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision, unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child's life upon others.

    So while anti-abortion commentators such as Michael Franc of the National Review sees Down syndrome's victims as "ambassadors of God" who "offer us the opportunity to rise to that greatest of all challenges," for many, that opportunity for challenge is little more than a lifetime of endless burden. In this light, it is completely legitimate for a woman to look at the circumstances of her life and decide that having a child with Down syndrome (or any child for that matter) is not an obligation that she can accept. After all, the choice to have a child is a profoundly selfish choice; that is, a choice that is an expression of the parent's personal desire to create new life.

    And most parents seek to create healthy life; in the case of the unborn fetuses shown to have severe developmental disabilities, one study reports that over 90% of these fetuses are aborted prior to birth. But if you notice, the anti-abortion zealots try to attach a dirty little slur to these abortions, labeling them a form of eugenics.


    [W]e need the mentally retarded to teach us how to better sacrifice our lives and divest ourselves of our self-interested ways more than they need us to care for them. At Noodlefood, Diana Hsieh condemns such a stand as "the worship of retardation." Given that Palin had complete foreknowledge of her child's severe disability yet nevertheless chose to have it, it is hard not to see her choice as anything less.

    Pretty vile stuff.

    So, I guess in this guy's mind, we should have no Helen Kellers or Franklin D. Roosevelts; no Lord Byrons, Lord Nelsons, or Beethovens. Is that the argument? That unless you're 100% "healthy" -- and by whose standards is "healthy" defined anyway? -- you don't have a right to live? And what gives this guy the right to decide?

    And just so you know, this guy is no small potatoes columnist either.  He's written for the Washington Times and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He's been on Bill Maher's show. He isn't some minor-league columnist who no one knows and has never heard of.

    Plenty more where that came from as it were. Thus begs the question: where does it stop[ with these people? Eye color? Hair color? The sex of the baby? What amounts to a burden either real or perceived? The point is, it's a question that is on its face ghoulish to ask in the first place. Life is life. It is precious, and it is enriching. For more reading of the chicken soup for the soul variety, see these stories over at RealChoice regarding babies with anencephaly:
    Monica's story
    Liz's story
    Jaime's story
    Stephanie's story
    Sue's story
    Dawn's story
    Also, I recommend this great post over at Christian Answers: Is it better for deformed or handicapped children never to be born? Actually no; no it isn't.
    < What Canadians Want You To Know AND Michigan Doctors Taxed to Death! | Mike Nofs Needs Your Help >

    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

    Display: Sort:
    Franc is concerned about the burden on society? (none / 0) (#1)
    by maidintheus on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 08:44:14 AM EST
    Franc has no facts but many sides to his mouth. Here's some blunt facts for him!

    So (none / 0) (#2)
    by quigonjames on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 04:38:21 PM EST
    they're politicians then?

    "Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision . . ."

    Display: Sort:


    Make a new account

    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search