The story in the press (I read the issue of People while waiting for my grandmother to pass on) is that yes, she did know prior to Trig’s birth. Now whether that is the truth or not is subject to debate, since as you point out, amnio is not without risk and Gov. Palin is pro-life so amnio results wouldn’t make much difference except in preparation. It is possible the family did not know for sure until the birth and the whole “chose to give birth” is somewhat of a shading of the circumstance.
I’ve not read the thread, I’m just responding to the OP with my view:
Firstly, pro-choice advocates do not say, “Let’s get rid of the handicapped!” You’re (unintentionally) presenting a false dichotomy in your phrasing of the OP.
Now, if Sarah Palin felt that a baby with Down’s Syndrome should be brought into the world for religious reasons or because she felt that she could raise him/her to be a happy person, or for whatever reason, that’s entirely her choice. Whether it’s a noble or asinine thing for her to do, though, is irrelevant. It’s not my or your place to decide what’s right for someone else to do when it doesn’t effect you or anyone else in any way.
If she spent 20 years working on a cure for Down’s Syndrome and offered it free to the masses, that’s noble. If someone decides to tattoo pictures all over her torso, it doesn’t effect me in any way. They might have done it for religious reasons, to appreciate the suffering of having your skin pierced like Jesus’ skin was pierced. They might have done it to feel good about themselves. They might have done it because all their friends did. But assuming they did it for what seems to them, a noble reason, am I a lazy cretin for not getting a similar tattoo? Taking extra hardship on yourself for something you believe to be “noble”, even though it doesn’t effect anyone else, is the moral equivalent of announcing a party for all invisible pink unicorns. Debating its value is irrelvant.
Sarahfeena hit it right on the head with her assessment of my argument here. And I do believe that all choices are equal when it comes to women choosing whether or not to continue with a pregnancy, even in the face of handicaps, regardless of how dire they might be.
I think Lori and (now) George Schappell would disagree that their mother’s choice was less equal than yours or mine. They love their lives and are a joy to their friends. Same goes for Abigail and Brittany Hensel, who’re adored by their family and friends alike.
I’d challenge anyone here to tell TokyoPlayer that his and his wife’s choice to bring their son, Ian, into the world 2 years ago this week wasn’t an “equal” choice, but I would hate for anyone here to actually break his already broken heart.
Presuming you don’t 1) want to legislate your opinions, or 2) make an ass of yourself telling somebody they should or shouldn’t have aborted their kid when they did the other, it’s still okay to hold the opinion that the other person made the wrong choice, right? As long as you don’t make an ass of yourself about it?
(And does anybody else think that it’s equally bad to criticize somebody who chose to get an abortion when you thought they shouldn’t have, as it is to criticize somebody who chose not to get an abortion when you thought they should have?)
But what about Jonny Kennedy, aka “the boy whose skin fell off” ? HE said he wished he’d never been born. And what about children with Tay-Sachs, which as said earlier will die very young and never feel anything but pain ?
It may be politically incorrect to admit it, but I’m sure there are many disabled people who wish they’d never been born, many parents who wish they’d never happened, and many such families whose relationships were fatally poisoned by the stress and suffering and burdens involved. Despite all the Pollyannish nonsense about such families about how wonderful and happy everyone involved is.
And that’s great.
Is it true of all conjoined twins? Is leading entirely happy, successful lives true of all people with DS (or at least, to the extent the rest of us luckier people do)? That the results of a choice may turn out ok does not mean that the choice is therefore perfectly ok in all cases, just in that particular case. We need to look at all the results of that choice, not just a couple.
I suggest to you that it might be a better idea if we do not use TokyoPlayer’s family or their grief in order to support our arguments.
Sure, you’re free to think and feel whatever you want.
It’s entirely possible to be Pro Choice and still have an opinion about the choices that others make. As long as you’re not trying to make a law that would force people to make the choice that you think they ought to, there’s no hypocrisy.
If the bloggers you refer to are of the opinion that mothers of DS child ought to choose to abort, but are not advocating that aborting DS children be made mandatory, then I don’t see that as a violation of their Pro Choice status.
I’m not sure that’s true, because the whole point of the pro-choice movement as I understand it (and bearing in mind that it’s not my personal philosophy) is that you are allowing and trusting an individual to make the right choice for herself, with the understanding that you can’t really know her unique set of circumstances. The ethical part of it is the assumption that she will do the right thing for that set of circumstances.
Could be. Of course, they have other tests now, like the Level II ultrasound that will give a good idea, and then some people go on to have an amnio to confirm. Either which way, I guess she accepted a Down’s baby by default (which is what I felt I made the decision to do when I chose not to have the amnio).
Nitpick, but it should be “for herself, the family, and the unborn child” not just “herself.”
Part of what disturbed me about it, though, was that one of the reasons given was that keeping the child was sending the wrong message to the world on this issue…that because she kept the baby, she was being applauded, and that no one should be applauded for such an action. I think that’s wrong from my viewpoint, which is pro-life, and I believe it’s also wrong from a pro-choice viewpoint. It is much too important of a decision for a woman and her family for her to be concerned with what message she is sending or whether or not other people think she is right or wrong to do it.
I don’t think that’s a nitpick, I think you have a valid point. But I don’t think it changes what I said…the point being that she alone has a true understanding of whether or not she and her family can handle the situation, and it’s not for anyone else to decide for her (or, as I said above, to worry about whether or not it’s good for some kind of movement).
( bolding mine ) I don’t think so. There’s nothing wrong about the position “I think you should be free to choose, but here’s the way I think you should choose.”
No, it’s just ‘herself’. Some herselfs weigh in the opinons of various other persons and perhaps the imagined opinion of a person who doesn’t actually exist yet, and if she does so her opinion about what’s best for herself will be altered by those opinions and speculations, but ultimately it’s still just what’s her opinion about what’s best for herself.
You haven’t addressed my argument that you have no way of knowing what is best for the individuals in question.
Sure, I hope so, and I think that even if she’s wrong, she’s right. Her body, her decision. But with all things that I think people should be free to do, there’s always a risk that they will choose badly. I simply think that the nature of the choice is that only one person should be allowed to make it.
To use an analogy: The Supreme Court makes decisions all the time. I fully support the SC getting to make decisions. I’d fight like mad any attempt to remove that power from the SC. I think the SC getting to make decisions is vitally important to our country.
That doesn’t mean I think the SC is always right. I want them to do their best; that doesn’t mean I don’t get to roll my eyes at some of the things they decide.
So, X gets to make the decision. No one should be able to interfere with the decision X makes. Everyone else gets to have an opinion on that decision when it’s put in front of us. Having an opinion about a decision is not the same thing as usurping the decision in the first place.
In the specific case of Trig Palin, I have no opinion about the decision. If it ever came to light that he wasn’t getting the love and time and support of both of his parents, then I’d judge their decisions very harshly. I am not on the lookout for such neglect, though, and wouldn’t expect ever to learn about it.
So then you would advise morbidly obese people who can’t walk and live in virtual closets to start adopting golden retriever puppies? The ability to give the people in your care a situation fitting to their needs is entirely irrelevant to deciding whether to take on that burden, yes?
Should I punch you in the face? It’s beyond the average human’s ability to decide if any action they may take will have a positive or negative effect on those it would effect, after all, yeah?
I think (almost) everyone agrees that it’s solely the parents’ decision to have a child or abort it. That being said, I find it hard to defend the responsibility of a decision to knowingly have a child you cannot financially or emotionally support, regardless of their disabilities. It’s about being responsible. It’s not noble or brave to make decisions that burden other people. Particularly when the person has little ability to contribute anything of value to society.
I feel safe in saying that a life of constant agonizing pain ending in an early death is bad. And if someone says they wish they’d never been born, I’ll take their word for it.
I agree with the sentiment that DS doesn’t fall into the “absolutely worthless life” category. People with DS can fall into a broad spectrum of abilities, from college student to life-long institution resident. Even the latter isn’t necessarily without value. Just because someone is a financial burden doesn’t mean people can’t love them very much (as slacker twenty-year-olds can attest).
There are disorders and conditions, however, where the pain and suffering on the individual outweighs the good of life. If you know your child is going to be born so severely damaged that they will be blind, deaf, profoundly retarded, and suffering from numerous spinal, digestive, and respiratory problems (think constant pain), then it’s pure selfishness to bring this child into the world just for the sake of your “love”. Yes, life is full of suffering. Suffering makes us appreciate non-suffering moments more and teaches caretakers to be compassionate and loving. But maybe the sufferer would prefer not to be exploited in this way. Maybe they would prefer their parents become better people in a less painful way. Or maybe not. I dunno, it just seems like it would be fairer to err on the side of humane treatment rather than assume, in an irrational way, that Everything Happens for a Reason So This Must Be a Special Blessing.
I would like to ask Sarahfeena and everyone else what their reaction would have been if it became known that Sarah Palin had indeed gotten an abortion upon learning that her fetus was diagnosed with DS.