Trig Palin’s threat to the abortion industry
posted at 9:30 am on September 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
A Canadian doctor expressed concern that Sarah Palin’s decision to give birth to Trig, who has Down’s Syndrome, may have negative consequences for women in his nation and elsewhere. How so? Instead of getting abortions 90% of the time, Dr. Andre Lalonde says, more women may discover that they can deal with the challenge of such a child, and refuse abortions. Quelle horreur!
Sarah and Todd Palin’s decision to complete her recent pregnancy, despite advance notice that their baby Trig had Down syndrome, is hailed by many in the pro-life movement as walking the walk as well as talking the talk.
But a senior Canadian doctor is now expressing concerns that such a prominent public role model as the governor of Alaska and potential vice president of the United States completing a Down syndrome pregnancy may prompt other women to make the same decision against abortion because of that genetic abnormality. And thereby reduce the number of abortions.
Published reports in Canada say about 9 out of 10 women given a diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to terminate the pregnancy through abortion.
Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Ottawa, worries that Palin’s now renowned decision may cause abortions in Canada to decline as other women there and elsewhere opt to follow suit.
This sounds more like the abortion industry worrying over a declining demand than a physician caring for a patient. Parents of DS children manage to have fulfilling lives, and they would say because of their child and not despite the decision to give birth. The Palins do provide a role model in that manner, as do the millions of other parents with such children who get no special attention for their love and sacrifice.
What kind of doctor looks at this situation and says, “The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada”? Does the sight of a strong family represent that great a threat to the abortion industry in Canada or elsewhere? The SOGC tried recovering from this statement by insisting that doctors don’t push women carrying DS children into abortions, but a Down’s Syndrome support group says that’s simply false:
Members of Canada’s Down syndrome community say that many of the country’s medical professionals only give messages of fear to parents who learn their baby will be born with the genetic condition.
“It’s very dark,” said Krista Flint, executive director of the Canadian Down Syndrome Society. “They hear a lot about the medical conditions that are sometimes associated with Down syndrome. They hear about the burden … it places on children and a marriage. They hear about things like shortened life expectancy. They hear a lot about the challenges of a life with Down syndrome.”
Given Lalonde’s primary concern as stated by Lalonde himself, the fear seems to be that abortionists might have to deal with fewer customers.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
kaptain america 12:50
.s. it’s not “alive” until it can live on it’s own outside the body… until then it’s just a part of your own body which if you want to cut off your own hand… be my guest.
>>>>>>>>>>
If we took away your source of food and oxygen you couldn’t live either. Therefore you’re not alive.
Right?
justincase on September 11, 2008 at 1:04 PM
While this did happen, on very rare occassions, is it really better than the millions of babies that have been killed?
MarkTheGreat on September 11, 2008 at 1:04 PM
You are generous. There was no thought involved.
geckomon on September 11, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Well, two points. First, note my use of scare quotes. That means that I’m using the term other people use, not endorsing it.
Secondly, let me paint an extreme scenario, and you can figure out where ithe rest is coming from. Some women who have children with Down syndrome are in their 40’s, are poor, single, or otherwise disadvantaged (maybe their older children are in trouble, or maybe their spouse is abusive, or maybe they are clinically depressed), and may already be distraught at simply being pregnant. They may have family that is religiously or culturally very conservative, even if they aren’t very conservative themselves.
The mother may choose to continue the pregnancy because she is worried about what others will say or do if she terminates the preganancy, and in fact, having a Down syndrome child may turn out to be an unqualified personal catastrophe for the woman and her family (ie the child is born severely ill, undergoes numerous and prolonged of surgical and medical interventions, and dies after about 10 years, leaving behind a depressed, alcoholic mother, who is now divorced and whose ther children are now completely neglected and severely dysfunctional. (This stuff does happen, you know, though I agree that it is NOT the usual scenario. It is as bad as it sounds.) In such an event, the woman is facing pressure from people who may not have either the woman’s or the child’s interest at heart: their opposition may be cultural or ideological in nature. It is “undue” in that it is not based in the only thing that an MD should concern themselves about: how do we help this mother, now.
So…that sort of thing. Chromosomal disease can be an utterly catastrophic event for the patient and the family alike. If you see that happen once, you don’t forget it. People really don’t like talking about it.
On the other hand, catastrophes may “unduly” influence an MD’s judgement as well. Be cool: I’m not saying anything radical here.
HiHo on September 11, 2008 at 1:06 PM
t
Excuse me, but which amendment is the Abortion Amendment?
NoFanofLibs on September 11, 2008 at 1:08 PM
You are just a theory to liberals…you can’t be happy or lead a normal life; you can’t be productive…you should have been aborted.
And the mother that would have aborted you would have been happy to.
Anyway, that is what the liberal mindset is, you can be discarded because you do not produce what they want you to produce.
They just can’t grasp the concept that every living human being is a gift from God…and is loved.
right2bright on September 11, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Liberals are the cult of death.
Ayn Rand detailed all of this in Atlas Shrugged.
Montana on September 11, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Liberal. Is it a disease, a birth defect or a choice?
Perhaps it is genetic. We should conduct research to identify the errant gene and provide, as a matter of routine pre-natal care, ideology testing of zygotes/fetuses. This information would be provided to the expectant mother who would then be able to exercise her right of choice. As a public service, the physician would explain how arduous the liberal life will be, how much pain and suffering liberals will experience throughout their lives (especially as young adults, when the onset of liberal symptoms seem to peak), and also how dramatically the parent’s lives will have to change in order to cope with raising a liberal.
Wow. Just change the target of the argument and it just sounds so stupid. But, one can hope.
BobMbx on September 11, 2008 at 1:12 PM
The absurdity that anyone can be “unduly” pressured to not kill (ok, abort, but that would be mincing, right?) their child in their womb is preposterous, no matter how dire the situation you paint (or how wordy).
geckomon on September 11, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Of course you also would like to see life support systems in hospitals done away with too? Hey, if you can’t live without assistance, you must be allowed to die?
Just curious, do you have a DNR order in your will or on your Drivers License?
BobMbx on September 11, 2008 at 1:14 PM
In my younger days I was OK with the idea of abortion. I was awakened from my dogmatic slumbers by something Mother Thresa said. She firmly held that caring for the unfortunate is a major source of joy: that true love and true reward comes from service. When I first heard that it was just strange but I couldn’t get it out of my head. And I slowly came to understand what she meant.
The Beatles said, “The love you take is equal to the love you make.” But I think the return is greater than equal. And I think Sarah Palin will be more than capable of handling what is going to come at her because she has a firm foundation of love.
snaggletoothie on September 11, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Buckeye Sam, this is from the GOP 2008 Platform, which McCain/Palin support. It goes beyond repealing Roe v. Wade and allowing the states to handle the abortion. So I do think you owe me an apology:
Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life
Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.
—————————–
justincase (and otherss), you and I will disagree over the point at which “people” are entitled to protection under the law. We’ll also disagree about how far the government should go to protect people once they’re entitled to legal protection.
jim m on September 11, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Would anyone have a problem adding to the procedure of abortion? What I mean is this:
You get to have an abortion, no questions asked. During the abortion, your uterous is removed. If it lives on it’s own outside your body, you can have it back. If it doesn’t, well, let’s call it a 2-for-1, eh?
BobMbx on September 11, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Your grasp of biology is flimsy. Perhaps I can help.
Life does not begin: living cells can come only from other living cells.
Human life does not begin: living human cells can come only from other living human cells.
When a living human sperm cell successfully fertilizes a living human ovum the result is a living human zygote – a complete, though not yet completed, living human organism.
A human being, like any other living organism on this planet, begins his or her individual existence as a zygote. This is not an opinion – it is a biological fact.
The zygote/morula/blastocyst/embryo/fetus has its own genetic code and therefore cannot be considered part of the mother’s body.
Hope this helps.
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 1:20 PM
How does that statement speak to a child in the womb losing it’s life because someone deemed him unworthy?
geckomon on September 11, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Is something without brain waves or a heart beat so clearly “alive”, ManlyRash.
jim m on September 11, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Are you at all familiar with the amendment process, Jim? Or did you just forget to add the sarc tage at the end of your post?
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 1:22 PM
I don’t consider an early stage fetus to be a child, geckomon.
jim m on September 11, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Ok.
Here’s an example:
That is simply your opinion, and you are neither the mother concerned in the hypothetical instance, nor do you write the law, so your personal opinion about what is appropriate is irrelevant to her decision.
So, for instance, if you somehow heard about any given stranger faced with the decision, and you sought them out, and argued with them, I’d say that that was undue, even if I agreed with you, and I’d joyfully clock you one for even trying.
Is that succinct enough? You can have the last word here.
HiHo on September 11, 2008 at 1:24 PM
God is good and Holy. You are a miracle creation of God. Your difference is not the result of your sin or your parent’s sin.
As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. “We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work. “While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world.” When He had said this, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes, and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which is translated, Sent) So he went away and washed, and came back seeing.
– John 9:1-7
It is a result of the fall of Adam that effects us all in various ways and ultimately in physical death.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. – Romans 5:14
But..
But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. – Romans 5:15-21
shick on September 11, 2008 at 1:24 PM
You should pose this question to your other team members, the ones who cry for brainless, heartless dead trees.
BobMbx on September 11, 2008 at 1:24 PM
“….and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.” (from GOP Platform)
Looks like the GOP thinks they might not even need a Human Life Amendment, ManlyRash.
jim m on September 11, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Abso-effing-lutely.
I am ashamed to admit that I worked in an abortion clinic back when the bombings were going on. I was the abortionist’s body guard. I sat in the lobby in plain clothes, armed with a weapon, in case some loon with a bomb or gun decided to storm the clinic, making thirty bucks an hour.
I would sit for hours and hours, pretending to be a woman waiting to have an abortion, or waiting for someone having one. I had the opportunity to listen, to observe, and to absorb, Saturday after Saturday after Saturday.
The vast majority of those women were exactly that, clients, customers. I began to even recognize some of the repeat “customers” women who were using abortion as birth control.
I sat in the office, shucking and jiving with the staff, with the docs, and became friendly with them. I heard the comments about how terminating babies was a lucrative business. The clinic’s doctor’s daughter (in high school at the time) drove a forty-thousand dollar vehicle.
One day I was in the back where the procedure rooms were. A nurse opened the door of a room in which the procedures were performed and walked out with a basin in her hands. I will never, ever, ever forget what I saw in that basin.
Much to my eternal shame and dismay, I was pro-choice. On that day I became pro-life.
SuzEQCitizen on September 11, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Abortion is not simply removing a child from a mother’s womb, it’s destroying the child in the womb, then removing him.
geckomon on September 11, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Helps what?
You are saying the male sperm is as much alive as a baby???
How many kids have you killed in the bathroom…singlehandedly…
right2bright on September 11, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Hey, those abortion centers have to pay for rent, employee salaries, medical supplies. How could you all be so heartless? This proves the GOP has anti-business policies and will hurt the economy.
/sarc off
Bill Brasky on September 11, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Yes. Want examples? Or shall I allow you to Google this for a few minutes so as to avoid being humiliated?
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Hey this is simple, and my apologies if some one said this already…
The abortion of a DS child is the ULTIMATE sacrifice for Liberal Theology. The only reason for such termination is because the parents do not want a “damaged” child.
The absolute worst thing a pro-lifer can do is to make someone who has had an abortion “feel bad” about said abortion.
The Palen family by embracing and loving their baby boy are a reminder to the 90% who “chose” to abort that maybe, just maybe they were wrong.
Jeff_Boeing on September 11, 2008 at 1:30 PM
I didn’t want to go on this.
I may be pregnant… I haven’t found out as of yet, and am waiting.
It may ALSO have problems. As my BF takes some serious drugs (cancer drugs) for Rheumatiod Arthitis, so his joints do not deteriorate at a higher level.
Will I abort this possible child, no. Because I believe everything happens for a reason. Life is not perfect and no one can tell you it will be. But at least if something does happen to be a problem, I will know that I will do my best by this child. Good or Bad.
upinak on September 11, 2008 at 1:30 PM
A powerful testimony…have no shame, not changing would have been the shame. You should be proud of being able to change your mind when presented with facts…read some of the comments and you can see yourself, before you made the choice yourself.
right2bright on September 11, 2008 at 1:31 PM
No. A living sperm cell is just that: a living cell. Ditto for the ovum. Both are living cells, but neither is an organism. Did you skip biology in high school?
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Liberals and Democratics alike need to accept this as a fact of life:
Abortion is murder. Human beings exist at conception. These are the facts. You will never gain our acceptance of the right to murder for convenience.
Get used to it.
BobMbx on September 11, 2008 at 1:32 PM
With all your examples and scenarios, you keep leaving out the one component, the most important component, the pivot of all your scenarios; the silent child.
That is why I deemed the statement absurd. Not once did you cite consideration for the child’s will to live or it’s right to exist.
geckomon on September 11, 2008 at 1:32 PM
More is the pity for you.
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Blessing to you…
BTW, just to show you how dense one can be, I just a few minutes ago dissected your posting name and “got it”. Clever, you not me…
right2bright on September 11, 2008 at 1:33 PM
The left just get creepier and creepier; they apparently don’t see any value in a child with disabilities, and like Hitler, would have them exterminated because they are a “burden on society”. That’s beyond disgusting.
foxforce91 on September 11, 2008 at 1:33 PM
LOL I can do ya one better. I thought yupe-a-nak was a guy! But she’s a woman up in AK!
SuzEQCitizen on September 11, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Much to my eternal shame and dismay, I was pro-choice. On that day I became pro-life. – SuzEQCitizen on September 11, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Your shame and dismay are not eternal and cannot be, for you are a mortal creature, whose frailty is as much a part of your nature as is the courage you have shown to overcome it. The evil we repent fades into oblivion; the good we embrace endures forever.
Never forget that, Suz.
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 1:37 PM
If I was a possibly pregantn man I would be rich right now.
And no i am not talking about the sex op type crap.
upinak on September 11, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Humiliate me, ManlyRash.
jim m on September 11, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Good for you upinak. I’ll pray for you and your baby.
shick on September 11, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Are these doctors idiots? Or, do they get a commission for each aborted baby with DS?
EVERY child/adult I have ever met who has ds seem happier than everybody else.
A few months ago after I’d been blogging for Sarah as Veep, I went to Mass and there was a family with a girl with ds. She was fine and happy. Then, while grocery shopping after Mass, I ran into a mother and father with two little girls in tow, and one who I thought might have ds. I asked the father and he smiled and said yes. I smiled back and told him to Google “Sarah Palin Governor of Alaska”.
Yes, children with ds need more love, but they ARE gifts. The only time they are NOT gifts is when you start thinking of yourself instead of others or being selfish.
I used to be Democrat and became a Republican because I started noticing that the Republicans were just nicer people that the bitter Dems I encountered. I also began thinking on my own and digging much deeper in news sources to really find out the truth of issues.
Conservatives are more compassionate because I have witnessed it, and I do volunteer work now.
If you have not read it already, I really STRONGLY RECOMMEND the book by Arthur Brooks “Who Really Cares?”. It confirms what I suspected all along that conservatives are more selfless on average compared to liberals, who generally talk more about compassion but don’t walk the walk on average when compared to conservatives.
Sapwolf on September 11, 2008 at 1:39 PM
No, but I do like to rattle the cage of foolish people. Obviously you don’t have a humor bone in your body…
This is what you wrote, I wasn’t responding to basic biology, I was responding to your incomplete posting. Or did you skip english in high school?
Now run along and don’t be so snarky…or did you skip snarkology in high school?
right2bright on September 11, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Agree. The question at hand is whether a child with rights exists at the cellular level. All of us began as a single cell, either planned or unplanned, and if the fertilized egg had failed to implant each of us wouldn’t be here–though perhaps a genetically similar child would have been born in our place a month later. Our existence is not an argument against that other life that will never be lived.
dedalus on September 11, 2008 at 1:39 PM
right2bright on September 11, 2008 at 1:39 PM
and
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 1:31 PM
I believe you are on the same side but coming at it from different perspectives. Take a breath and reread previous comments before things got heated.
shick on September 11, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Thank you both.
SuzEQCitizen on September 11, 2008 at 1:45 PM
My cage wasn’t rattled and I assure you my sense of humor is marrow-deep. You might consider perusing some of my other posts elsewhere on this site.
I write for a living. Please fill in the missing portion of my post. Thrall me with your acumen.
Project much? Perhaps you should consider a new name. How about Not2bright?
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 1:48 PM
So the choice to keep a DS baby is a threat to … choice? What’s happening here is that abortion is no longer just morally permissible, but is morally mandatory in some cases, especially with regards to fetuses with DS. We’ll see more and more of this as medical science increases its ability to detect problems early into pregnancy. As many have pointed out, this will cause quite a problem if and when doctors can detect a “gay gene.” I suspect that gay activists won’t take too kindly to the mass abortion of fetuses with such a gene.
Bill Ramey on September 11, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Who invited the Zebra?
right2bright on September 11, 2008 at 1:50 PM
What is it, then? A giraffe? A petunia? Pray tell.
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 1:51 PM
The operative word is legislation, Jim. Legislation involves legislatures, namely, the House and the Senate. Far from a simple SCOTUS diktat, no?
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 1:53 PM
You are welcome, Suz.
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 1:55 PM
You know, that is a good one…I have never heard that before. Now did you just think that up all by yourself. Here let me help you.
Right2bwrong
Not2bright (the most common one used)
Not2be
Right2bstupid
There are more, but feel free to use any of those. In the past two years of posting, whenever someone feels threatened they usually fall back on the not2bright, that’s the standard.
Yeah, I can tell…
right2bright on September 11, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Advances in genetic science will likely cause a whole set of debates–what if more boys than girls are chosen, would we eliminate Down syndrome if we had a chance, what if lesbian mothers chose to create more lesbians?
dedalus on September 11, 2008 at 1:58 PM
My pleasure, Jim. Here is your post:
The answer to your question is yes. Protozoa, marine sponges and plants – to name a few. None of these has a brainwave or a heartbeat and yet all are unquestionably alive.
Should have Googled that one, Jim.
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Militant feminists’ dreams come true
NoFanofLibs on September 11, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Excellent! Then it means you can read…and, hopefully, learn.
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Watch out jim m, he writes for a living…and he may not be licensed.
right2bright on September 11, 2008 at 2:03 PM
About the missing portion of my post to which you referred: still working on that? Or was snarking the limit of your response?
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 2:03 PM
So you think plants and Protozoa should have legal rights?
jim m on September 11, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Of course not. I was simply answering your question, Jim.
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Legislation in that case refers to the US Senate and House in all likelihood. I don’t know how a state legislature could pass legislation that would bestow rights under the US Consitution.
But the point I made is this: McCain/Palin want to go beyond overturning Roe and create a US Federal law in this area, taking it away from the states.
jim m on September 11, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Thanks for sharing your story. How proud you must be in your son. I am proud of you. What a wonderful choice you made.
Loxodonta on September 11, 2008 at 2:13 PM
I’ve used this example previously, so bare with me;
If you had a boss that didn’t like you and prevented you from getting a good rating every year, should the government be allowed to tell you that you could *not* kill him? Of course, because the primary duty of the government is to protect. Because the pro-life people see the baby in the pregnant female as a “life”, they are upholding the law that protects that life. This is the fundamental difference between the pro-choice and pro-life groups, the deliniation of where life begins. If tomorrow the pro-choice groups said that “officially” life begins at the beginning of the third tri-mester, then any abortions performed after that would be considered murder, right? Well, the pro-life groups’ position is that life begins at conception. We all value life and agree it needs to be protected, or else the Susan Smith’s of the world would be free to kill their children whenever they wished.
Your argument about a “decision” is moot because both sides agree that life should be protected, only where to draw the line differs.
Geministorm on September 11, 2008 at 2:16 PM
The debate on this very topic is so scary no one wants to go there with the affirmative position.
Beyond medical reasons, genetic research may and probably will give us the ability to identify/control such things as:
Genetic birth defects
Prevent cancer, leukemia, ALS, etc.
Eye color
IQ
Physical characteristics
All of these, on the surface, sound like good stuff. As dedalus properly predicts, we will also be able to:
Prevent mixing of races (conception prevented)
Prevent homosexuality (gays are never conceived)
Provide evidence of uninsurability to insurers
Is this really a genie we should let out of the bottle? If you think the never-ending battle over abortion is bad, wait till someone passes a law that says it’s ok not to insure a person because they were born with “bad” genes, and the parents knew it, therefore all liability and expenses fall on the parents. By liability and expenses, I mean life insurance, health insurance, mortagages, car loans, credit cards, etc…. Why give someone a loan who probably wont be able to fulfill debt obligations in the first place?
BobMbx on September 11, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Yes, and there are two ways to do this. One is to go the amendment route while the other is to go the legislative route. The former would enshrine the right to unborn life in the consitution itself while the latter, although easier in some respects to get enacted, might also be overturned by SCOTUS. Either way, the legislative process is involved.
Is there a problem with this?
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Not unless you equate published with licensed.
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 2:25 PM
These are two separate issues. Overturning Roe vs. Wade is good for all sides because it draws in the SCotUS from making law as a non-legislative or executive branch. Whenever the justices veer from judicial restraint, it is bad for all Americans because our rights are being removed without recourse (have you ever seen a SCotUS justice impeached?). The same applies to Kelo, Hamdi and Al Odah. The SCotUS overstepped their role in judging constitutionality of a law(s) and went to making new law based upon their societal views and world view. That is wrong wrong wrong, whether they are conservative or liberal.
I would prefer that Roe vs. Wade get overturned, and then either each state pass their own law on the matter or there is an amendment to the US Constitution to settle the matter. Remember, an amendment is a tough thing to pass and it requires a super-majority to pass it. So, if the super-majority of the US wants to legalize abortion or outlaw it, it would be the law that we would all live by because of our democratic rules. And, if opinion should change greatly over time, it could then be reversed (see 18th Amendment). As it stands now, it cannot be overturned except by an amendment or the SCotUS. These are unelected and unaccountable officials making our laws…a very bad thing.
Geministorm on September 11, 2008 at 2:26 PM
“Does the sight of a strong family represent that great a threat to the abortion industry in Canada or elsewhere?”
YES.
Gaunilon on September 11, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Thank you for posting this. Love sees beauty and joy, where misery sees only itself. May you and your family always be filled with love.
Loxodonta on September 11, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Beautifully expressed. I will remember that!
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Thank you for sharing this story. May that girl’s spirit of sweet joy live in your heart forever, and bring you comfort on days when your own burdens are heavy.
Loxodonta on September 11, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Thank you for sharing your tears. There are some things that words cannot express.
Sometimes we adults are so busy teaching such big things, such important things, that we forget to learn from the littlest things in life. Thank you for the reminder.
Loxodonta on September 11, 2008 at 2:51 PM
You see your daughter’s life as a gift to you. In so doing, you are giving an enormous gift to her: love. Thank you for sharing your gift with us.
Loxodonta on September 11, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Dedalus at 1:39
The question at hand is whether a child with rights exists at the cellular level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Declaration of Independence talks about all men being “created” equal, endowed with inalienable rights. When were you created?
justincase on September 11, 2008 at 3:09 PM
There is a point in time at which every human being begins his or her individual existence as a human being: the moment of conception. To dispute this is to cast off the moorings of reason and biological science and drift out of port into an ocean of subjectivity.
The big question is not whether all human organisms are human beings. Rather, it is two questions:
Are all human beings human persons?
Do all human persons have an unalienable right to life?
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 3:19 PM
I think all children cause stress in a marriage. Just financially, children are stressful. All children have issues, no one is perfect. There is no bigger pressure for me than the fear that I may fail my children by losing my job, or giving them too much/little, being too protective or not protective enough, fear that they didn’t learn enough to not walk across the street with their head down or look before swerving on their bike…
It is a never ending stress that all parents will feel as long as they live. My parents (in their late 60s) tell me they still worry about me every day.
BUT, the tradeoff is more than fair. When your child looks up at you and says they love you or reaches for a hug or their eyes light up when they are doing something they enjoy, it will lift your heart and soul like nothing else. There is no father I know that isn’t like melted chocolate for their daughters and beaming with pride for their sons (societal norms being what they are).
Anyone that says that they feel sorry for those parents whose lives are ruined by their kids are ignorant (and probably childless). Children, even sick children, bring incredible joy to peoples’ lives. Yes, there is tremendous stress, but I don’t know a single person who doesn’t say that their children are the joy of their lives and worth every second. Down Syndrome children are not incapacitated, they simply do not learn as much or as quickly. In return, I don’t think I’ve ever met a sad or unhappy person with Down Syndrome, they are always incredibly optimistic, joyful and humorous. I even suspect that my daughters will cost me more financially in the long run than if I housed and cared for a son or daughter with Down Syndrome their entire lives. Would my Down Syndrome child demand the latest fashions, the $300 shoes that they wear one time, the $30K car that I pay insurance on even after they wreck it, the $100K wedding at some resort, the golf/tennis/horseback riding/ballet lessons they stop going to, the down payment on their $500k house she and her husband get right after the marriage, etc.? Right now, I’m doubting it.
Geministorm on September 11, 2008 at 3:19 PM
At the time of the Declaration I probably would have been created equal when I was born a white male. Perhaps at the time of the Declaration if the topic of aborting a pregnancy came up, they might have discussed “quickening” as a standard.
dedalus on September 11, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Sorry guys – if my girlfriend was going to pop out a retard, I’d get it “taken care of” very quickly.
If you want a retard, hey – that’s great. Have fun watching it grow up for an illustrious career bagging groceries at the local supermarket and dying at 23.
But don’t dictate what I should do in that situation. That’s called being a sanctimonious prick, and nobody likes a sanctimonious prick, right?
an_abstraction on September 11, 2008 at 3:31 PM
I think you should be banned. But you are correct on being a prick!
upinak on September 11, 2008 at 3:34 PM
It is a poverty to decide that a child must die
so that you may live as you wish.
- Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta (1910-1997)
Loxodonta on September 11, 2008 at 3:40 PM
The irony is you’re blessed your parents didn’t feel the same about you.
You don’t seem to know how to use the word “sanctimonious” correctly, but you certainly have “prick” well defined.
geckomon on September 11, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Truth.
geckomon on September 11, 2008 at 3:45 PM
AN ABSTRATION AT 3:31
Sorry guys – if my girlfriend was going to pop out a retard
>>>>>>>>>>>
It’s called coitus interruptus. More power to her if she does it.
justincase on September 11, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Dedalus at 3:23
But when do you say that you were created?
justincase on September 11, 2008 at 3:49 PM
YOU GOTTA UTERUS?
No, of course not, because anyone with a uterus knows, them babies don’t just pop out.
SuzEQCitizen on September 11, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Perhaps. But then, advances in the biological and medical sciences since then have made “quickening” an archaic term employed, for the most part, by those who view the Founding fathers as a bunch of racist rich white guys.
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Weak.
Weak.
I personally don’t need a uterus to stand up for the God Given Rights of someone who happens to have one.
To sum up – Federal Laws dictating what to do in a personal situation like having a child are bad, mmkay?
an_abstraction on September 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Easy there, Suz. Don’t let the trolls rattle you. I know it’s tough to do, but ignore drek posts like that one.
Much like Los Angeles gangbangers, these guys drive through the neighborhood, shoot indiscriminately, and then drive away – not unlike the mainstream media.
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 4:02 PM
I personally don’t need a uterus to stand up for the God Given Rights of someone who happens to have one.>>>>
An aborted baby girl (mentally disadvantaged or not) has a uterus. Will you stand up for her God-given rights? Why or why not?
justincase on September 11, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Just federal laws? What about state law? Is that bad also? And why are these laws bad if their intention is to protect innocent human life? Educate us, please.
ManlyRash on September 11, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Um. You humor impaired or something? Geez, talk about one flyin’ over the head.
While we are at it, however, could you cite some evidence that having a fetus ripped out of one’s uterus is a God-given right?
SuzEQCitizen on September 11, 2008 at 4:06 PM
And you seriously do not have a right to tall anyone, including your girlfriend, how they should take care of themselves or their bodies… which includes being pregnant.
Lets say you do have a child that is not of sound mind. Welcome to the real world, you will be just like millions of other “Parents” who are in the same boat, but much more mature.
I have a feeling you are just like every other jack in the box wannabe metro sexual on transient thinking. Non-exsistent common sense in all sense of the word.
Put the Mocha down and step away before you totally make an ass out of yourself… OPPS, I guess you already did!
upinak on September 11, 2008 at 4:06 PM
LOL, the all-caps was to show surprise…he spoke in first person. ;)
SuzEQCitizen on September 11, 2008 at 4:07 PM
An aborted baby girl (retarded or not) resembles a bowl of red oatmeal, and as everyone knows, oatmeal cannot fundamentally have a reproduction system so your argument is INVALID.
Next!
an_abstraction on September 11, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Waiting for the citation!
Next!
SuzEQCitizen on September 11, 2008 at 4:10 PM
ManlyRash at 4:02
Sorry. I try to tell myself that people like that are rare, but their line of reasoning (I use the term loosely) shows up in liberal talking points and even (less bluntly) in judicial rulings.
I remember back when Melissa Drexler gave birth at the prom and left her strangled son in the bathroom trash can. There was somebody who facetiously put up an argument for why she shouldn’t have been charged with anything, because she was just performing a live-birth aborion – the safest way to abort.
This person predicted that in a few years people wouldn’t know if a comment like that was sarcastic or not.
And wouldn’t you know? That exact line of reasoning is what the idiot judge from my state used to decide Stenberg v Carhart. So now we’ve got doctors in hospitals routinely helping women do what Drexler was sentenced to 8 years (I think) in prison for doing.
What kind of idiots have we become in this nation? The dumbing down of education will be the undoing of this nation.
justincase on September 11, 2008 at 4:12 PM
::Note to self:: Stop giving intellectual credit to those who spew incendiary nonsense.
Check!
SuzEQCitizen on September 11, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Yes.
You can find a definition of “life” in any biology textbook you care to pick up and read. In none of them will the definition include the presence of brain waves or heartbeat. Most will discuss such things as growth, change, ingestion, reproduction, etc. and will acknowledge that there are stages of development in which one or the other of these criteria may not be present, but they are eventually present in the organism. Anything that meets these criteria is “life” in the biological sense.
Anything that contains human DNA can be described with the adjective “human,” which denotes species.
A living organism with human DNA is a human life. This is a scientific, provable fact, not an opinion, not a religious declaration, not a philosophical possibility. This is a fact.
Proponents of legal abortion love to obfuscate by injecting philosophical considerations, because they understand at some level just how incredibly weak their position is if they ever even acknowledge that any high school junior who’s taken biology knows that a living human zygote is unambiguously a human life.
philwynk on September 11, 2008 at 4:14 PM
>>An aborted baby girl (retarded or not) resembles a bowl of red oatmeal>>
So will you when the maggots finish you off. What difference does that make? You tryin’ to say everybody has God-given rights except those who don’t look like you think they should?
Let me know when you graduate from potty training, will ya?
justincase on September 11, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »