A Defending Crusader…

The best defense is to be good and offensive…or something like that.

Burdens on Society

Posted by Godefroi on September 21, 2008

I recently discovered Cassy Fiano, a very happy discovery.  Except for one thing…the first post I find on her site is discussion and rebuttal of another commentary by one Nick Provenzo. 

It appears to be Mr. Provenzo’s contention that Trig Palin should not have been allowed to live.  That is, since Trig is afflicted with Down Syndrome, Trig will be a drain on her family, and thereby society at large.  The RIGHT choice would have been abortion.

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.

For one, aside from this being CLASSIC communist thought, this is the same line of thinking that allows the U.S. Federal Government to have so much unconstitutional power in our affairs, under the umbrella of the interstate commerce clause (i.e., basically anything you do COULD be construed as having a possible effect on interstate commerce, and therefore can be regulated by the feds).  So by extension, since your decisions to have children effect society in general, you SHOULD consider the potential negative effects of a child with a disability on everyone else.  The choice is yours of course, but the correct choice is abortion.  Got that?  Your individual right is not as important as the well-being of the collective.

…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.

News to Mr. Provenzo.  Having a child is not a CHOICE.  It is the natural expected biological consequence of copulation.  It makes much more sense that to intervene against the course of nature for one’s benefit is the ‘profoundly selfish choice”.

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.

Eugenic: relating to or fitted for the production of good offspring.  Mr. Provenzo, killing a child with a genetic disability falls perfectly under the definition of eugenic.  It’s not a slur, it’s the English language. 

Also, the logic in parts of his argument are faulty.  He states twice that since it is only right to eliminate an unhealthy unborn child, it’s also only right to eliminate a perfectly healthy one.  This makes no sense at all.  By that thinking, since it’s lawful to kill deer in my state, it’s OK to kill ALL the deer.  What?

I have a question.  Notice the scrupulous adherence to the term “fetus” in the article.  What is a fetus?  More to the point, what exactly is a fetus that is being carried by a human female?  Well, it’s a fetus.  Duh.  OK…what KIND of fetus is it?  Is it a dog fetus?  A giraffe fetus?  A kangaroo fetus?  Hello?  That’s right, it’s a HUMAN fetus.  HUMAN.  I don’t see ANYWHERE a constitutional right for one human to arbitrarily end the life of another human.

The founders of this nation wrote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  Notice which comes first?  LIFE.  The right to LIFE takes precedence over liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Finally, only the willfully blind don’t see the logical extension (to borrow Mr. Provenzo’s proclivity) to the argument put forth in the article.  It’s even grander proposals to better the collective, like this:

…in her latest interview, given to the Church of Scotland’s magazine Life and Work, Lady Warnock goes further by claiming that dementia sufferers should consider ending their lives through euthanasia because of the strain they put on their families and public services.[…]

Lady Warnock said: “If you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives – your family’s lives – and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service.

There’s really no difference in the two arguments.  And they both boil down to this:  either you have worth simply because you’re human, or you don’t.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: