DaveC on September 18, 2008 at 9:06 AM

What else can I say but you’re welcome, and thank you for asking. It’s a little awkward posting something that personal on a political site like this, but I guess it illustrates that life is precious, regardless of the circumstance. We all make our own decisions. The Palins made their decision, and I just cannot see how it can be a burden on them, or would be a burden on society in general.

C’mon AP, this is like analyzing the ranting of the village idiot. Any analysis is over-analysis.

Akzed on September 18, 2008 at 10:39 AM

Sorry Akzed- I disagree. Provenzo may be a village idiot’s apprentice (village idiot is above his paygrade) but there are too many people out there who are either true believers, or are willing to give such a flip disregard for the disabled a pass because they just don’t give a damn. The way I see it, Provenzo attempted to make eugenics look “hip and edgy” by way of a soapbox. Trig Palin was just a vehicle to make his true feelings acceptable to a wider audience. Abortion is a very personal matter, and is not the sort of thing that should be tippped by a poorly researched column.

Abortion is the destruction of life.

Religion is the destruction of intellect.

Kinda like welfare mothers? – Ron

That’s a freakin’ homerun, a touchdown and a shorthanded goal all rolled up into one!

Tony737 on September 17, 2008 at 11:26 PM

Not really. The author would agree with us on that point. He’s an objectivist and as such doesn’t believe that anyone should live at the expense of another, including welfare mothers.

But that’s also where his argument fails. You don’t fix welfare by killing off the welfare mothers. You fix it by getting rid of it. If government would stop spending money on them, there would be no need to get rid of them. They’d fail or succeed on their own merits.

The same is true of disabled people. So long as we get rid of government programs that burden others (by force or by taking our money) with their care, the issue is resolved.

You have to wonder if this guy’s mother wishes she had an abortion. The proverbial once I was born I was all infavor of abortion rights.

DVPTexFla on September 17, 2008 at 10:42 PM

Stupidest quote I ever read on abortion:

“I’m marching for abortion because my mother couldn’t.”

Even from a pure Capitalist/Objectivist point of view, this doesn’t follow. A disabled child may be a “burden” (financially) to its family, but in a non-welfare state, which is certainly what Mr. Provenzo would advocate, the burden would end there.

Hannibal Smith on September 17, 2008 at 10:54 PM

Exactly, which is why this doesn’t necessarily reflect on Rand or Objectivists. Ayn Rand did believe that abortion was a right, but I haven’t found anything that suggests that people should be pressured into having them.

We are ALL imperfect.

annoyinglittletwerp on September 18, 2008 at 12:08 AM

A variation of one of my favorite observations:
Perfection exists only in the mind of God*
(sorry – i don’t have proper attribution)
* fits whether you’re a believer or not

BillH on September 18, 2008 at 1:50 AM

thank you for sharing..

and the info about ALS as well.

The most cold-hearted example of this is China’s monstrous one-child policy, where children are routinely murdered in order to serve the societal priority of population control. But the utilitarian argument is popping up in other places as well.

When advocates of embryonic stem cell research advocate federal funding for this work, they are making a frank utilitarian argument, that the value of the potential research outweighs the value of the human life destroyed. By advocating for public support, they are moving the debate from the area of the rights of the researcher to do what he wants with private property, to the area of utility, where the government makes a value judgement that this trade of research-for-life is valid and worthy of support.

Now we are seeing this utilitarian argument rearing it’s ugly head in the case of Trig Palin. The balancing of life vs. burden that is at the heart of the utilitarian argument is effected by the fact that the burdens are greater and the percieved value of a handicapped life is less. The proper response to this argument is not to put things on a scale and weigh them, but to refuse to engage in the argument because it is monsterous.

People must be mindful of the fact that “burden” and “value” both lie on a scale. Every birth is a burden on the parents, on some level. Every life has value. If we accept the argument that Trig Palin should die because he will be a societal burden, then we must be ready to accept the argument that the child born to a poor mother who can’t provide for him must also die. If we accept the argument that Trig Palin’s life is not worth living because he probably have a limited intellect, then me must be ready to accept the argument that the life of an elderly person who is losing his intellectual capacity is also not worth living.

This way lies nothing but untold horrors. This argument must be rejected at every opportunity. The Palin family had rejected it through their beautiful example of caring and love. We should all do likewise.

Killing a death row inmate, someone who has earned that right, is one thing, but it’s another to just murder an innocent unborn because the child is in-convienent or un-wanted.

There is nothing moral about murdering innocents.

Didnt want to get banned for calling him what he deserved to be called. :-)

Comedian offers money for Bristol Palin to abort her baby.

Elric66 on September 18, 2008 at 6:06 AM

I’ve heard this guy before. I think you are a wee bit generous calling him a comedian.

Comedian offers money for Bristol Palin to abort her baby.

This is why the Objectivists were kicked out of the conservative movement.
You go, Buckley/Chambers. – emailnuevo on September 18, 2008 at 12:38 AM

OT a bit, but on the above, a fine insight vis a vis Palin:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/palin_the_base_and_the_northea.html