Imagine feeling this way and having so little shame about it that you’d ask a major newspaper to publicize your point of view.
And now imagine that the paper prints it, reasoning that an opinion shared so widely must be “reasonable” and defensible by definition.
The worst part here is her patronizing praise of mothers who carry their children with Down’s to term. How admirable you are to bear the burden of this defective.
I respect — I admire — families that knowingly welcome a baby with Down syndrome into their lives. Certainly, to be a parent is to take the risks that accompany parenting; you love your child for who she is, not what you want her to be.
But accepting that essential truth is different from compelling a woman to give birth to a child whose intellectual capacity will be impaired, whose life choices will be limited, whose health may be compromised. Most children with Down syndrome have mild to moderate cognitive impairment, meaning an IQ between 55 and 70 (mild) or between 35 and 55 (moderate). This means limited capacity for independent living and financial security; Down syndrome is life-altering for the entire family.
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.
I wouldn’t call it “good company” but she does have a lot of company in her views, particularly in Europe. “What is the purpose of pre-natal testing for Down syndrome?” asked the author, Ruth Marcus, in a tweet afterward, highlighting the fact that even doctors screen for Down’s early to help their patients weed out the “undesirables.” In a better world the answer would be “to help parents start to adjust as soon as possible to the special needs their child will have,” but that’s not the world we live in.
Naturally Marcus is being applauded for the “courage” of her monstrousness by like-minded bien-pensants. I’ll grant her two points. One: The usual pro-life counter to abortion arguments, that adoption is always an option, is a harder sell here precisely because Marcus’s view isn’t fringe. Even among the population of childless couples eager for a baby, some surely don’t want “that kind” of baby and not because they can’t afford it. A woman weighing whether to carry a baby with Down’s to term might reason that its future would be uncertain and potentially difficult in institutions if she surrendered it and it wasn’t adopted, in which case the “humane” thing to do is to, ah, kill it.
Two: She’s ultimately making a legal argument against state laws (like in Ohio and Indiana) that attempt to bar women from aborting if their sole reason is the fact that the baby has Down’s. That makes no sense, Marcus argues, uncorking this humdinger of a line: “Can it be that women have more constitutional freedom to choose to terminate their pregnancies on a whim than for the reason that the fetus has Down syndrome?” You don’t often see abortion supporters frame the right to choose in terms of “whims” — maybe she figured if she’s going to be brutally honest about aborting Down’s babies, she might as well be brutally honest about abortion in general — but she’s right, of course. The point of the Ohio and Indiana laws is to offer special protection for babies at greatly elevated risk of being aborted, but that creates a framework in which it’s okay to have your baby killed so long as it has 46 chromosomes but not if it has 47. If the state can start carving out exceptions from abortion rights for certain kinds of children, that’s a foot in the door to banning the practice entirely. Thus, if you’re pro-choice, you really have no choice but to die on this hill if need be. In the name of making sure that any child can be lawfully killed in the womb, we have to make sure that Down’s children can be too.
Needless to say, she’s hearing it from conservatives today:
So selfish she would not make a good parent, may she be childless alone and miserable.
Liberals can’t be bothered with the chances of life.
This Girl With Down Syndrome Just Graduated High School With 3.7 GPA
http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/16/this-girl-with-down-syndrome-just-graduated-high-school-with-3-7-gpa/
Abort your unborn child then attend the SAVE THE REDWOODS protest or oppose fracking and fossil fuels dressed as a Polar Bear
@DrJohn: Yeah, but raising such a child is harder and they aren’t as cosmetically presentable in public. So, kill them and sell the parts.
@DrJohn: Great mom not allowing others to define her child, and place limits on her goals. Its ok to fail unless you didnt even try.
Do you believe that the government should be empowered to force a woman to continue a pregnancy when it has been medically determined that the fetus is destined to develop into a child with Down’s Syndrome?
@Greg: Do you think all imperfect offspring be euthanized?
Should we prosecute a woman who throws a newborn in a dumpster to die?
@Greg: The option is the death of a human life.
I don’t oppose abortion for abortion sake. I do, however, think it is a despicable and barbarian form of birth control, particularly when it is an option to inconvenience. Abortion past 20 weeks should be illegal but for cases of medical emergency.
And, there is no inherent “right” to an abortion.
@kitt:
Neither relates to the general question I posed, which goes to the heart of the matter.
Should the State have the right to order women to continue pregnancies that they do not wish to continue? Can they command that you remain pregnant and give birth when your own choice is not to do so?
If so, by what authority?
@Greg: Grow up Greg, This woman is saying I got pregnant to have a child, oh no it isnt what I wanted it is flawed, or not the correct sex. Typically the test is done at 12 to 15 weeks, what she does to her child at that point is legally up to her, as long as she can make arrangements.
New England Journal of Medicine raising concerns about Non-Invasive Prenatal Screening (NIPS), the new blood test for Down syndrome, being offered by Sequenom, Ariosa, Verinata, and Natera. 1 in 5 tests show a false positive.
Having a child in your 20s significantly lowers the risk.
Now answer my questions.
@Greg:
There is no “order to continue a pregnancy”. The person went out and GOT pregnant; it’s not a plague. But, there are laws against murder. The problem is to get liberals to understand that murder is not simply something that sometimes happens to benefit their political goals.
So, a couple of evasions of the question.
I have my own clear and simple answer to it, independent of any personal approval or disapproval I might harbor concerning what a woman may choose: No, the State has no such right. An adult has sovereign authority over his or her own body.
@Greg: There is no government order to let people live, either. But, there are laws against taking a life. Sadly, the Founding Fathers did not anticipate the stupidity of liberals.
@Greg: It isn’t her body the child has a separate heartbeat, brainwaves, dna it is a separate person, she is simply carrying it for a short 9 months of perhaps 90 or more years. To deny that is to deny science. It is the height of ignorance to treat a tiny human as you would a wart or corn on your toe. The Supreme court was wrong the Constitution reads All men are created equal, so at the moment of the childs creation, when egg meets sperm, that human has rights.
Bill you best read the declaration of independence, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which women that have their unborn children killed, deny to the tiny human being.
@kitt:
They haven’t declared their party affiliation yet, so they have no rights.
A potential person is not yet a person. An adult woman already is. She may treasure that potential, or she may not. In either case, what it might eventually become IS NOT a thing that already exists. It’s only a possibility.
A mouse fetus has a heartbeat, brainwaves, etc. Such things are present in the developing fetuses of all creatures that give birth to live young. While they must be present for there to eventually be a person, they do not define what is a person.
@Greg: Potential? Meaning it could be something else? Like what? Possibility? Is this like a little pregnant?
You sure go the long way round to endorse killing.
There’s a potential for rain tomorrow. Rain is a possibility. Rain tomorrow isn’t yet an actual thing. Do you find this a difficult concept?
@Mully: These are the people that want us to believe they want guns banned to protect the lives of children. Funny, huh?
@Greg: A Growing baby isnt a concept, it will not potentially be anything else, the lefts twisted use of language doesnt make the scientific fact that it is a human child any different, perhaps it eases your conscience, but it doesn’t absolve the facts of murder.
Wont even consider life saving measures of babies that survive the barbaric practice the tiny little baby left to die.
A fetus isn’t yet a baby. It isn’t yet a person. Your argument depends upon giving all three terms the same meaning, and then eliciting an emotional response to cover the lack of logic. They are not the same.
A baby with Down’s Syndrome or a person with Down’s Syndrome is deserving of the same rights and protections as any other person. They are of equal worth as human beings and equal under the law. None of which applies before that person actually exists.
Having said that, I personally question the morality of a prospective parent’s decision that a fetus known with certainty to be genetically flawed and destined to become an individual so afflicted should be brought into the world, when the process could be terminated before an afflicted person even exists. What gives one the right to impose these future circumstances on someone who doesn’t yet exist?
I would not presume to impose my own view of what is right and wrong on a prospective parent making such a decision, nor should they expect any right to impose their view on another in the same situation. It’s a personal moral decision.
@Greg:
So, when IS the moment a liberal will admit a “fetus” is viable, a life, and aborting it is killing a human being?
So, if someone views murder as a “right”, they should have that right and not be prosecuted if they kill someone that is bothering them? Murder being wrong is a moral concept, backed up (at times) by the rule of law. By your way of thinking, it is justified if the person murdered was in your way of having a good time.
@Greg: You have, as a man, no right to an opinion on a baby carried, You have never carried a child, never felt it stir, never been kept up all night as it made your ribs its jungle gym, never wet yourself with a well placed boot or head butt to the bladder. They dream , get fussy, make demands and they even suck their thumbs.
A pregnant woman never calls it a fetus they say “my baby”.
Again language change is just an attempt in conscience soothing.
@Bill… Deplorable Me, #25:
I’m not sure whether to take that set up as false equivalence or an instance of circular reasoning, where you assume your conclusion to begin with. Either way, it’s a logical fallacy.
Sound logic is the path of clarity. Fallacies are the path of confused thinking, leading to unsound conclusions.
@kitt, #24:
Protecting individual rights, even of someone who is not like yourself, is everybody’s business. That’s a fundamental Democratic principle. Doing so isn’t a right. It’s a responsibility.
@Greg: What of the childs individual right? Its not like we have the right to vote on this issue, it was 7 people who are ultimately responsible for millions of cruel and unusual murders of defenseless innocents. Not even with the same compassion they give those that get the death penalty by a jury of 12.
@Greg:
Where is the answer to the first question? That determines the relevance of the term “murder”. Or, do you liberals not accept any limitations?
Wow. THAT’S kind of selective. Unborn children get no rights I guess.
What if Planned Parenthood used a firearm to kill these unwanted children? Damn, I guess your head would just explode then.
@Bill… Deplorable Me: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettabrown/2018/03/13/champion-swimmer-with-down-syndrome-talks-about-the-effect-of-abortion-targeting-babies-with-the-condition-n2460459
They cant shove them in an under staffed asylum anymore, I guess that means a different kind of death penalty for a rare genetic condition mostly caused by a womans choice to delay being a mommy til the clock has nearly run out.
@kitt: But you don’t understand. Liberals don’t think they should ever have to be inconvenienced. They only want a baby for the showcase benefit. If they are going to be additional hardship, they have the right to eliminate them. If they are not going to dress up well, they have the right to eliminate them. If they are going to interfere in getting pregnant AGAIN, they have the right to eliminate them.
The entire world owes them freedom from inconvenience.
@Bill… Deplorable Me: Greg says he is a champion for individual rights but sees no problem with the murder of the4th amendment in the spying on private citizens using a secret court without a direct warrant, we are spying on Page so we get to spy also on 2 people he calls, emails or farts next to, and 2 people those first two people fart next to and so on. But it involved someone he doesn’t think has a right to privacy so screw those rights.
Those on the left are so shallow, they only care about rights they can twist into an agenda.
@kitt, #27:
A fetus incapable of existence apart from the body bearing it is not yet a child. Until then, there is no child. There is no person. There is a biological process underway that may or may not eventually result in one.
I’ve grown weary of circular reasoning. You won’t even acknowledge the possibility that someone may hold a position different from your own as a result of different beliefs that are every bit as sincere and valid as your own. My advocacy is of choice, not abortion. Supporting choice is a principled position.
Maybe some people don’t like the idea that freedom to choose makes every individual morally responsible for their own decisions. Personal responsibility is one of the costs of individual liberty.
@Greg:
I’ll try once again; when is that moment? When does the fetus become something that has the right to life? At what point does it cross a line to kill it?
When will you grow weary of ignoring questions? How can we determine if we disagree if you won’t state your position? When is the moment the life being carried is protected by the common principle of right to life?
You’ve established you think my premise of a right to murder (a choice, by the way) is ridiculous. Indeed it is. However, you won’t answer the question as to when that “choice” becomes murder. That is not circular; it is quite linear. If there is such a thing as murder and murder of a living being is a crime, there has to be a line drawn when the choice to abortion would become murder. When is that?
If you don’t know when that is, how do you know ALL abortion is not murder and that the life within, conceived out of love, mistake or folly, is a life to be protected and preserved?
@Greg: With medical advancements that brings it to 21 weeks those born before 24 weeks are called micro preemies often 1 lb or less.
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865691962/The-Clean-Cut-NICU-babies-don-tiny-costumes-for-Halloween-contest.html
We are asking women to take personal responsibility and not kill these little miracles out of inconvienence.
@Bill… Deplorable Me, #33:
Either at birth, or at some earlier point of development where a level of brain activity has emerged indicating an existing capacity for more than unconscious reflective responses. Prior to that, when higher brain functions have yet to emerge, no one is home. There’s no person present.
Even then, I believe abortion should be entirely a matter of personal choice if the life or health of the mother are gravely threatened. This isn’t a choice for the State or anyone’s church to make.
@Greg: The fetus can form rudimentary memories. Meaning that after birth it can show a preference for its mother’s voice.
An unborn baby at 20 weeks gestation “is fully capable of experiencing pain. … Without question, [abortion] is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a barbaric surgical procedure.
Scientific facts, easily searched.
That assertion is not supported by the scientifically observed level of neural development that exists at 20 weeks.
Reflexive responses to external stimuli involve nerve impulses that bypass the brain entirely. The impulse pathways are through the spinal cord. Reflexive responses can remain even when the brain is no longer capable of functioning.
@Greg: I have already linked to babies in hospital nurseries that are under 26 weeks gestation they could keep these children alive in the 80s, the youngest to survive is in college. My information came from medical journals dated 2012
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/845410 here is a more recent one,
So does the fetus, in fact, feel pain? A growing body of evidence says yes. The fetus is known to have pain receptors throughout the body by 8 weeks of gestation.,By 20 weeks gestational age, the fetus will react to a painful stimulus in the same manner that adults do.
http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com.
You can stop denying science, to soothe your conscience, we wouldnt allow the school shooter to be ripped apart then sold for parts.
The evidence presented in support of the first couple of points on “Doctors on Fetal Pain” was enough for me to decide they’re playing fast and loose with the implications of the information being presented. That pain receptors exist and are linked by nerves to the brain structures cited doesn’t mean anything if consciousness isn’t present; reaction to touch doesn’t mean anything beyond the fact that reflexive responses are present. I won’t waste my time on misrepresentation and logically defective arguments.
@Greg:
AT BIRTH? You think that is the line? No, how about you specify the precise moment because it is, as they say, a matter of life or death.
No one disputes the health risk factor, so don’t go there. But, you believe it is a matter of “choice” at 20+ weeks? I think this is counter to even the broad and seemingly boundless guideline you tried to dodge out under above. No, after 20 weeks, aside from medical emergency, there is NO EXCUSE for an abortion. 20 weeks is plenty of time do determine the impact of child bearing on party life.
Sorry, the “State” has made murder a crime. So, it isn’t a “choice”. It is either murder or it isn’t. I have, of course, been testing and toying with you because I know the cowardice all abortion-supporting liberals show in the face of the question of when the spark of life is lit.
Because any other presumption erodes the “convenience” of abortion. I think, if abortion is to exist as an option, the moment the embryo qualifies as a living human being is vitally important and whatever that moment is, it should be given a broad definition to err to the side of safety. If , of course, one actually cares about protecting lives and the rights of the living. If NOT, then proceed as you have been.