Colmes apologizes for comment about son after Santorum and wife get emotional; Update: Video added

posted at 9:31 pm on January 2, 2012 by Allahpundit

You guys are creeping up on 500 comments in the other thread so I figured you’d want to know how the Santorums reacted.

Not well.

At a Pizza Ranch restaurant in Newton, Iowa, a member of the audience asked Santorum to react to a controversial attack leveled by liberal Fox News contributor Alan Colmes, who called the Santorum family’s approach to grieving for their dead baby boy, who lived for only two hours after his birth in 1996, “crazy.”…

[I]n Iowa this afternoon, Santorum explained that it was important for his other children to “know they had a brother.”

Santorum’s wife, Karen, who was at the event and listened to her husband talk about the experience, began to weep.

“It’s just so inappropriate,” she said as tears streamed from her eyes.

Santorum reportedly asked her at the event if she wanted to respond to Colmes. The terse reply: “No, I’d better not.” Colmes tweeted later that he spoke to Santorum by phone and that his apology was graciously accepted, which is probably sufficient to back Santorum’s political enemies off of this nasty line of attack until, oh, Super Tuesday at least. I’m looking for video of him addressing Colmes’s comments today on the trail but I can’t find anything at YouTube, CNN, or elsewhere. If you see the clip, please e-mail with a link.

Update: No video from the trail, but here’s Santorum talking about his son’s death and Colmes’s comments on “Hannity” tonight. Click the image to watch.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 4 5 6

In cases like this, a punch in the mouth should be perfectly legal.

Wood Dragon on January 3, 2012 at 2:19 PM

fadetogray: Does the definition of “viability” as it pertains to the Mother’s desire to provide “resources” extend to providing milk? If a child is born, but is starved to death by its Mother, is that OK?

……………

Kenz on January 3, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Of course not. The mother cannot just let someone else do it when the baby is in her womb. If the mother suffers from some kind of strange psychosis that causes her to be hysterical at the idea of feeding her newborn baby, she can get someone else to do it.

fadetogray on January 3, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Carnac on January 3, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Thank you for your sincerity.

But, I would say the story was about more than Alan Colmes calling Rick Santorum’s words and actions crazy.

listens2glenn on January 3, 2012 at 2:27 PM

My initial comment was to make note of the response to some HA readers when they used phrasing that was unappreciated by some. A few made a call for Big Brother to stifle the speech.

In the process of being the last defender of the freedom of speech, the following words/phrases have been used in reference to me:
clueless
from Paulworld; a Paulite; a troll
anti-prolife
stoned

And along the way mark81150 even called Paul “crazy”, the exact term used that initiated this story in the first place.

…….

Carnac on January 3, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Thank you for defending free speech. Just because no one rises to help you does not mean you are the last defender. It often means others simply think you are doing a good job of it.

However, Paul is crazy.

fadetogray on January 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM

After on the last thread Nathor boldly asserted they ran every possible test, and if they were to have a Downes baby, it would certainly be aborted,.. that in his view, to not test, or to bring into this world, a handicapped child was immoral.

yes my wife and i took this decision even before doing the test.fortunately everything was ok. i think bringing children into the world when they have severe disabilities, especially mental ones is cruel to the child. forcing this child to suffer when it could be avoided can be immoral. i also respect the sanctity of life, but if a down syndrome can be detected early on, then i think the reasonable thing to do is an abortion.

i know from my neighbors many cases of down children. even with their loving fathers the situation is not good. the children suffer and the whole family suffers. most of the cases where of undiagnosed down syndrome during gestation.
i have to confess that those examples parental dedication did not inspire us, they scare us. A new child into a family is supposed to be a joyfull thing. the promise that that child will grow to an full adult and have its fair chance in life and will be capable of everything other adults do. me and my wife see little meaning in bringing a child to this world if it cannot reach its full potential.

at conception the genes mix an the result is a lotto. many many times the mix is inviable and there is spontaneous abortions. other times the spontaneous abortions are late or the babies are still born. this is a natural process.
if we have the medicine to comprehend this process and predict its future. why should we not act upon it and avoid at least the worse outcomes and the suffering they bring?

My wife and I refused the test all three times, a child was a gift from God, and we so very much wanted and planned our children. An abortion would never happen with us, never….

you may think gods gifts cannot be refused. for me, my child’s are a gifts of random cruel process which is the mix of the genes and sometimes it produces bad gifts. these “gifts” i can refuse.

So by not testing, in his world, we’re immoral, my wife and I, to that fount of all knowing wisdom,.. nathor of Mordor…

you are moral according to your christian worldview but i think folowing certain religious principles to the letter and bringing hadicapped children to this world when such could be avoided is cruel to the child.

I’m so sick of the souless ghouls taking Colmes side in this..

i can care less about colmes. but i am not a ghoul. believe it or not i feel intense love for my children and my position is out of love, not hate.

Human beings aren’t just tissue to be discarded when less than perfect, and he may hate the comparison.. but I have one living developmentally handicapped brother, my sister and older brother, both with the same handicap have already passed away.

So they all are unworthy of life nathor?

ofcourse they are worthy of life. i hope that they were loved and happy in their lives.

Nazi Germany began euthanizing their handicapped population as being the “moral” choice.. who decides Nathor?

you?

killing live people handicapped or not? i would never agree with that.

If my brother were drowning in a pool alongside you and I could only save one.. do you think I’d opt to save the “normal” person, or my brother? When you start deciding who’s worthy of life, it’s a moral bridge you can’t uncross.

and Hell’s just down the road.

this situation is a moral false equivalence to early pregnancy abortion.

I was grieviously offended that my wife and I violated some kind of Paulian code, by not testing and possibly aborting a child for the crime of imperfection. As I saqid, two were born normal, if underweight and early, my son,.. my second son, was buried with a full funeral, and a host of grieving family. He died in my wife’s womb, but we saw him delivered, and never knew till…..

I would never dismiss him as tissue nathor, and it’s beyond cold blooded to even think that way. He had my first son’s face, his small hands, his fine brown hair.. he was our son,. and he may never have seen our faces, but that doesn’t change anything.

false equivalence again. a full term baby is not a early pregnancy fetus.

He was Garret, son of Mark, son of Angela, grandson, great grandson, and on back to the dawn of human existence. That is his birthright, and no one will strip him of that.

mark81150 on January 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM

this is a straw hat argument. i am talking about early pregnacy abortions and you think i want to remove full term babies of their right to exist and thus render the rest of my argument senseless and cruel.
in the process of making babies there are many times spontaneus abortions which are felt only as a irregular menstruation. will you call those children “Garret, son of Mark, son of Angela, grandson, great grandson, and on back to the dawn of human existence.”. i not minimizing your loss. i would feel the same if i had a stillborn child. but this is not what i am talking about.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 2:43 PM

To apologize for mocking Santorum’s dead baby @AlanColmes is sending him a coupon 4 Planned Parenthood, abort 1 & 2nd is 1/2 off.

DANEgerus on January 3, 2012 at 2:44 PM

@AlanColmes joke of the day: What’s funnier then a Republican’s dead baby? Claiming Trig isn’t Sara Palin’s child!

DANEgerus on January 3, 2012 at 2:45 PM

@AlanColmes feature segment for Thu: “How mocking dead babies of Republicans is funny and mocking Michelle Obama is racist”

DANEgerus on January 3, 2012 at 2:45 PM

I would not accept his apology. Apologies must come after repentance, and he isn’t repentant.

cptacek on January 3, 2012 at 2:50 PM

If you want a happy story about the outcome of a child birthed from affliction:

For most of her 100 years, Minka Disbrow tried to find out what became of the precious baby girl she gave up for adoption after being raped as a teen.

She hoped, but never imagined, she’d see her Betty Jane again.

The cruel act of violence bore in Disbrow an enduring love for the child. She kept a black and white photograph of the baby bundled in blankets and tucked inside a basket.

It was the last she saw of the girl – until the phone rang in her California apartment in 2006 with the voice of an Alabama man and a story she could have only dreamed

ITguy on January 3, 2012 at 2:53 PM

He was Garret, son of Mark, son of Angela, grandson, great grandson, and on back to the dawn of human existence. That is his birthright, and no one will strip him of that.

mark81150 on January 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM

You made me cry. A beautiful tribute to a beautiful life.

I am continuously amazed at the cognizant disconnect that allows the myth that “liberals” are kind, giving and sympathetic and “conservatives” are hard-hearted. The last election, we saw Democrat equal rights believers in action. They made up disgusting stuff about Sarah Palin and her baby and children out of whole cloth and then passed it around the main stream media until lies became truth. I waited for America to become outraged and the only outrage I saw was about a man with no history who wouldn’t produce his birth certificate. I remember a back and forth on Hannity and Colmes when there was a young woman who had survived a late-term abortion and they were discussing candidate Obama’s support of a bill that allows the Dr to murder the baby if it manages to survive the head puncture in the womb. I remember Colme’s response: “You aren’t actually accusing Obama of infanticide are you?” No one had the cojones to say “yes, yes we are”.

I’ve e-mailed O’Reilly and advised him that I’ll be switching to House Hunters every time I see the sophist little gnome with the arid soul.

Portia46 on January 3, 2012 at 3:14 PM

yes my wife and i took this decision even before doing the test.fortunately everything was ok. i think bringing children into the world when they have severe disabilities, especially mental ones is cruel to the child. forcing this child to suffer when it could be avoided can be immoral. i also respect the sanctity of life, but if a down syndrome can be detected early on, then i think the reasonable thing to do is an abortion.

i know from my neighbors many cases of down children. even with their loving fathers the situation is not good. the children suffer and the whole family suffers. most of the cases where of undiagnosed down syndrome during gestation.
i have to confess that those examples parental dedication did not inspire us, they scare us. A new child into a family is supposed to be a joyfull thing. the promise that that child will grow to an full adult and have its fair chance in life and will be capable of everything other adults do. me and my wife see little meaning in bringing a child to this world if it cannot reach its full potential.

at conception the genes mix an the result is a lotto. many many times the mix is inviable and there is spontaneous abortions. other times the spontaneous abortions are late or the babies are still born. this is a natural process.
if we have the medicine to comprehend this process and predict its future. why should we not act upon it and avoid at least the worse outcomes and the suffering they bring?

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Oh would you PLEASE get off your moral high horse already, and admit that the reason you would have aborted a child with Down syndrome would not have been to ease the child’s suffering, but to ease your OWN!

A recent poll of families touched by Down syndrome OVERWHELMINGLY viewed their child’s “condition” as POSITIVE and JOYFUL, not a cruel condition that caused their family OR child to suffer. My three little ones are the light of our lives, they absolutely DO NOT suffer, they are happy and well-adjusted, and their lives produce JOY in the lives of ALL the people they touch, from parents & siblings, to classmates & teachers, to everyone else they encounter in their daily lives.

This same poll questioned the people you ignorantly brand as “suffering” from Down syndrome, and 95%!!! said they lived happy and fulfilled lives. But you, in your oh so enlightened wisdom, would deny these same people the very right to live. I am GLAD the Good Lord didn’t choose to bless you with such a precious gift, because you would have rejected him/her simply because he/she didn’t meet your standards of “perfection”. Your sanctimonious drivel makes me SICK!

mom29js on January 3, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Oh would you PLEASE get off your moral high horse already, and admit that the reason you would have aborted a child with Down syndrome would not have been to ease the child’s suffering, but to ease your OWN!

Bingo! Ask those aborted children if they would rather suffer and be alive-Oh wait…Guess it wasn’t their “choice” someone took it away from them.

melle1228 on January 3, 2012 at 3:32 PM

I was going to try to respond to nathor’s blathering, but I just can’t. May God have mercy on your soul, nathor.

cptacek on January 3, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Nathor:

…yes my wife and i took this decision even before doing the test.fortunately everything was ok. i think bringing children into the world when they have severe disabilities, especially mental ones is cruel to the child. forcing this child to suffer when it could be avoided can be immoral. i also respect the sanctity of life, but if a down syndrome can be detected early on, then i think the reasonable thing to do is an abortion.

You do realize that “handicap” and “intelligence” are relative things? I’m sure you fancy yourself a marvelous thinker, but compared to Einstein perhaps you’re not quite up to snuff and when the gods of liberalism make their decision about who can live and who can’t, based on native intelligence, you might not make the cut. And handicapped? I think they can do genetic predictive tests for ALS. So the liberal gods would have killed Stephen Hawking too.

And your argument about these children suffering is interesting. You think they might “suffer” so you must kill them, like a horse with a broken leg. Under that reasoning, shouldn’t we just kill any child who suffers?

Killing babies as an act of humanity and mercy? The Herod solution?

Puleeese….

Portia46 on January 3, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Oh would you PLEASE get off your moral high horse already, and admit that the reason you would have aborted a child with Down syndrome would not have been to ease the child’s suffering, but to ease your OWN!
mom29js on January 3, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Bingo – this poster seems concerned with THEIR convenience/quasi-suffering. Only someone self-centered beyond reason could pretend that his plan to gut a disabled unborn baby was “for their own good.” Some marraiges/families may be negatively impacted by the birth of a child with Down syndrome but

Even now with all the tests available the level of impact of Down Syndrome can not be determined in utero. A child could be severely impacted or not. Education techniques are helping the children reach their potential. Appareently some people would eliminate any/all less than perfect babies – the blind, the hearing impaired, etc.

katiejane on January 3, 2012 at 3:49 PM

omitted:

Some marraiges/families may be negatively impacted by the birth of a child with Down syndrome but many blossom due to working together as a family unit .

katiejane on January 3, 2012 at 3:51 PM

And your argument about these children suffering is interesting. You think they might “suffer” so you must kill them, like a horse with a broken leg. Under that reasoning, shouldn’t we just kill any child who suffers?

And the definition of suffering is so relative. Is suffering a child in pain? Is it a poor child? How do we define if a baby is going to suffer enough to not allow it to live?

melle1228 on January 3, 2012 at 3:52 PM

And the definition of suffering is so relative. Is suffering a child in pain? Is it a poor child? How do we define if a baby is going to suffer enough to not allow it to live?

melle1228 on January 3, 2012 at 3:52 PM

And yet the extent and degree of suffering matters. It is not unusual for terminal patients to receive doses of painkillers the doctors and patients and their families know greatly increase the likelihood of shortening the remaining life of the patient, not to ‘put them out of their misery,’ but to reduce their suffering.

And I would loathe a society that didn’t allow that under the threat of a murder conviction for the doctors and family members.

There are no easy answers to this kind of thing.

fadetogray on January 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM

“How mocking dead babies of Republicans is funny and mocking Michelle Obama is racist”

DANEgerus on January 3, 2012 at 2:45 PM

+10

Portia46 on January 3, 2012 at 4:11 PM

To sum up (and I hope this has been seen as acceptable by Admin.), you haters are causing more collateral damage than you know. Those of us
who have been through this feel your words and they sting. If you have no compassion for the Santorum’s because of politics, I feel sorry for you. If you have no compassion for the thousands who go through this every day, you need to see a doctor. Do yourselves a favor; be well.

Kenz on January 3, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Exactly right. My reaction was visceral and there have been moments today when the pain felt absolutely fresh and it’s been 15 years. My neighbor told a story of her grandmother who had lost a baby who was one day old. Her grandmother died at 80 and the last words she uttered was calling that baby.

Colmes needs to suffer a lesser fate. Perhaps unemployment.

Portia46 on January 3, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Oh would you PLEASE get off your moral high horse already, and admit that the reason you would have aborted a child with Down syndrome would not have been to ease the child’s suffering, but to ease your OWN!

my own suffering of hearing my child ask why i cannot do these things that the other childs do. my own suffering of seeing him desperately seeing him try to fit in social groups and be gently rejected. i dont want the suffering of having to say to my “normal” child that he cannot go to a certain good school because the family has to pay for special school. i confess i dont want this suffering.
i dont have your belief nor your fatalist attitude that this situations should be accepted blindly as gods gifts. i want a normal family and the happiness it brings. and i will try as i can to have it. my wife shares my view. to me its morally acceptable to do early pregnancy abortions in these cases. and i will do them if the case arises but i really really hope the case does not arise. however i would really feel very very angry if someone, because of their religious views, would try to deny me this option.

A recent poll of families touched by Down syndrome OVERWHELMINGLY viewed their child’s “condition” as POSITIVE and JOYFUL, not a cruel condition that caused their family OR child to suffer. My three little ones are the light of our lives, they absolutely DO NOT suffer, they are happy and well-adjusted, and their lives produce JOY in the lives of ALL the people they touch, from parents & siblings, to classmates & teachers, to everyone else they encounter in their daily lives.

i dont think it would be as nice as the statistics say. i see examples with my own eyes.

This same poll questioned the people you ignorantly brand as “suffering” from Down syndrome, and 95%!!! said they lived happy and fulfilled lives.

But you, in your oh so enlightened wisdom, would deny these same people the very right to live. I am GLAD the Good Lord didn’t choose to bless you with such a precious gift, because you would have rejected him/her simply because he/she didn’t meet your standards of “perfection”. Your sanctimonious drivel makes me SICK!

mom29js on January 3, 2012 at 3:28 PM

it my opinion and it comes from the sincere and healthy desire of wanting to have a normal happy family and wishing the best to all my children. if it makes you sick. so be it.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 4:37 PM

And the definition of suffering is so relative. Is suffering a child in pain? Is it a poor child? How do we define if a baby is going to suffer enough to not allow it to live?

melle1228 on January 3, 2012 at 3:52 PM

YES!!! In this same line of reasoning, any time a child is diagnosed with leukemia or other type of cancer, we should do the “compassionate” thing and euthanize him immediately so he and his family won’t have to endure unnecessary suffering due to his condition. Right, nathor? /

The truth is, suffering in some form or another is a part of everyone’s lives….you can’t selectively attempt to eradicate suffering from your life without also eradicating the emotional and spiritual depth that will be produced in your life if you embrace adversity and allow it to mold & shape your character.

But don’t just take my word for it…

Let me embrace thee, sour adversity, for wise men say it is the wisest course. ~William Shakespeare

The art of living lies less in eliminating our troubles than in growing with them. ~Bernard M. Baruch

It is always in the midst, in the epicenter, of your troubles that you find serenity. ~Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Wartime Writings 1939-1944, translated from French by Norah Purcell

We shall draw from the heart of suffering itself the means of inspiration and survival. ~Winston Churchill

If we will be quiet and ready enough, we shall find compensation in every disappointment. ~Henry David Thoreau

Watch a man in times of…adversity to discover what kind of man he is; for then at last words of truth are drawn from the depths of his heart, and the mask is torn off. ~Lucretius, On the Nature of Things

If you can find a path with no obstacles, it probably doesn’t lead anywhere. ~Frank A. Clark

Who will tell whether one happy moment of love or the joy of breathing or walking on a bright morning and smelling the fresh air, is not worth all the suffering and effort which life implies. ~Erich Fromm

And this last one is my personal favorite because it describes the beautiful relationship I have with my precious children….

At times, challenges hit with the force of a roaring, rushing waterfall. The true test, however, is whether you can put your arms up and enjoy the feel of the water. ~Aviva Kaufman

mom29js on January 3, 2012 at 4:44 PM

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 4:37 PM

So, nathor, why are you back, again, attempting to convince everyone that your way is the best way?

Nearly everyone here has told you that they don’t agree with you. yet you continue to expound on your belief as being the right belief. You are not going to change their minds, and it is obvious that they will not change yours.

I believe the answer is that you are a “mission poster”. If you don’t know what that is get someone from the early days of the internet to explain that to you. You registered for Hot Air to push your “mission”. Your problem is that most here find your “mission” unworthy of consideration,, and detestable in it’s presentation.

The real question: is your shift key broken, do you find capital letters threatening, do you think avoiding capital letters is cute, or are you handicapped and can’t reach the shift key? Warning: if the latter I think it best that you not admit it or some here might have comments about your birth.

Yoop on January 3, 2012 at 4:53 PM

You do realize that “handicap” and “intelligence” are relative things? I’m sure you fancy yourself a marvelous thinker, but compared to Einstein perhaps you’re not quite up to snuff and when the gods of liberalism make their decision about who can live and who can’t, based on native intelligence, you might not make the cut. And handicapped? I think they can do genetic predictive tests for ALS. So the liberal gods would have killed Stephen Hawking too.

And your argument about these children suffering is interesting. You think they might “suffer” so you must kill them, like a horse with a broken leg. Under that reasoning, shouldn’t we just kill any child who suffers?

Killing babies as an act of humanity and mercy? The Herod solution?

Puleeese….

Portia46 on January 3, 2012 at 3:48 PM

what a drivel.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Appareently some people would eliminate any/all less than perfect babies – the blind, the hearing impaired, etc.

katiejane on January 3, 2012 at 3:49 PM

me and my wife though about this. we would still have the baby with these type of disabilities.
the worse are disabilities that kill babies or cause mental impairment. down children where on the line for us. they can be quite smart and autonomous but chances are that they would be the opposite and we would not take that risk. other disabilities like becoming a vegetable would be a no.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Who will tell whether one happy moment of love or the joy of breathing or walking on a bright morning and smelling the fresh air, is not worth all the suffering and effort which life implies. ~Erich Fromm

Yet where are we if the life to be ‘lived’ will have none of that? Does the dying prematurely born infant even know they were loved or does the agony they were in make their brief moment of life something filled only with horror?

These are not easy situations with easy answers. They can only be dealt with case by case, and even then with prayers we are doing the right thing, for we can never be certain.

fadetogray on January 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

what a drivel.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 4:53 PM

What’s the matter, somebody stomp on your mission?

Pathetic…

Yoop on January 3, 2012 at 5:05 PM

The real question: is your shift key broken, do you find capital letters threatening,

I think it has to do with his mission to be contrary, but that is just me :)

melle1228 on January 3, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Portia46 on January 3, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Perhaps the baby was calling to her, and she was answering.

Kenz on January 3, 2012 at 5:08 PM

other disabilities like becoming a vegetable would be a no.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 5:02 PM

You do realize, do you not, that you are potentially always one high spike in blood pressure away from being a vegetable?

What would you have us do with you?

Yoop on January 3, 2012 at 5:09 PM

And the definition of suffering is so relative. Is suffering a child in pain? Is it a poor child? How do we define if a baby is going to suffer enough to not allow it to live?

melle1228 on January 3, 2012 at 3:52 PM

it is hard to define. i wont deny it. we reasoned for some common disabilities and took our decisions yes or no we would proceed with the pregnancy in these cases. a vegetable child would be a no for sure, other cases would be a yes. mental disabilities were more concerning for us because cognitive abilities are fundamental for a child to achieve independence.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 5:10 PM

nathor

You have mentioned Western cultural values and, no offense; your writing seems as if English might not be your first language. If I may ask, where were you born?

Kenz on January 3, 2012 at 5:10 PM

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 5:10 PM

I understand where you are coming from. I don’t think it is an easy decision to have a child that is different from the norm. I changed my thinking on abortion in these circumstances when I worked with the special olympics. My position on abortion has evolved not only after I had kids, but knowing that abortion also victimizes the woman having one.

melle1228 on January 3, 2012 at 5:17 PM

This is the reprobate that threadsits on the pedophile and underage sex articles as well…it is very sick.

tom daschle concerned on January 3, 2012 at 5:17 PM

YES!!! In this same line of reasoning, any time a child is diagnosed with leukemia or other type of cancer, we should do the “compassionate” thing and euthanize him immediately so he and his family won’t have to endure unnecessary suffering due to his condition. Right, nathor? /

The truth is, suffering in some form or another is a part of everyone’s lives….you can’t selectively attempt to eradicate suffering from your life without also eradicating the emotional and spiritual depth that will be produced in your life if you embrace adversity and allow it to mold & shape your character.

But don’t just take my word for it…
mom29js on January 3, 2012 at 4:44 PM

life is challenging enough without having to take care of disabled children. having early term abortions of these children does not break my moral code.

in many ways we live our lives trying to take the easiest choices without breaking our moral codes.
i have a moral code its just not the same as yours nor its derived from religion. but i try as much as i can to follow it and feel guilty if i break it.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Nathor: My father was most likely mildly autistic, I’m mildly autistic, and my son(NHS, high honor roll etc) is most likely mildly autistic.
Very likely, someday I’ll have at least one grandchild that is also mildly autistic(Asperger’s Syndrome in all cases).
We all have deserve the right to live.
The only place ‘normal’ exists is in a dictionary.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

life is challenging enough without having to take care of disabled children.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Thankfully God made people with compassion who do his work. Nice of you to not get in the way./s

Yoop on January 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM

I believe the answer is that you are a “mission poster”. If you don’t know what that is get someone from the early days of the internet to explain that to you. You registered for Hot Air to push your “mission”. Your problem is that most here find your “mission” unworthy of consideration,, and detestable in it’s presentation
Yoop on January 3, 2012 at 4:53 PM

time will prove to you that I am not on a mission.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

I was diagnosed as LD at age 4. Next time I call my mother I’ll apologize to her for my continued survival.///
Your views are selfish-and they are EVIL.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

What would you have us do with you?

Yoop on January 3, 2012 at 5:09 PM

if i am a vegetable, please kill me.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Babies w/ Downs are NOT vegetables. People born with disabilities are NOT vegetables. They have souls…unlike you.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM

I understand where you are coming from. I don’t think it is an easy decision to have a child that is different from the norm. I changed my thinking on abortion in these circumstances when I worked with the special olympics. My position on abortion has evolved not only after I had kids, but knowing that abortion also victimizes the woman having one.

melle1228 on January 3, 2012 at 5:17 PM

thank you for understanding. my opinion might change too. we are always learning in life.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Kenz on January 3, 2012 at 5:10 PM

lol! I was born in the US.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Nathor: My father was most likely mildly autistic, I’m mildly autistic, and my son(NHS, high honor roll etc) is most likely mildly autistic.
Very likely, someday I’ll have at least one grandchild that is also mildly autistic(Asperger’s Syndrome in all cases).
We all have deserve the right to live.
The only place ‘normal’ exists is in a dictionary.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

funny, I think i am a little autistic too. That makes 2 of us. lol!

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Babies w/ Downs are NOT vegetables. People born with disabilities are NOT vegetables. They have souls…unlike you.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM
drivel…

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

funny, I think i am a little autistic too. That makes 2 of us. lol!

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Half the population is either mildly autistic or ADD. The other half are women.

fadetogray on January 3, 2012 at 6:14 PM

life is challenging enough without having to take care of disabled children. having early term abortions of these children does not break my moral code.

in many ways we live our lives trying to take the easiest choices without breaking our moral codes.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Ok, NOW I get it! The best way to assure oneself of living a happy and fulfilled life is to make the easy choices. Now why didn’t I think of that?!?!

It’s a good thing people like Edison, Bell, Franklin, the Wright brothers, & Ford didn’t embrace that selfish philosophy, otherwise America would only have 13 states with its citizens sitting in darkness and driving horses & carriages. Unfortunately, life isn’t compartmentalized into neat little packages that you can choose to accept or reject based on how “easy” it will make your journey. Life is messy, life is hard, but life is also beautiful and precious.

Again, “you can’t selectively attempt to eradicate suffering from your life without also eradicating the emotional and spiritual depth that will be produced in your life if you embrace adversity and allow it to mold & shape your character.

But if all you want is easy, then by all means….

mom29js on January 3, 2012 at 6:16 PM

life is challenging enough without having to take care of disabled children. having early term abortions of these children does not break my moral code.

in many ways we live our lives trying to take the easiest choices without breaking our moral codes.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Life Without Limbs (Nick Vujicic’s site)

Joni and Friends (Joni Eareckson Tada’s site)

TigerPaw on January 3, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Babies w/ Downs are NOT vegetables. People born with disabilities are NOT vegetables. They have souls…unlike you.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM

drivel

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Behold nathor’s moral code, as stupid or senseless (i.e. drivel) as it may seem.

Yoop on January 3, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Ok, NOW I get it! The best way to assure oneself of living a happy and fulfilled life is to make the easy choices. Now why didn’t I think of that?!?!
It’s a good thing people like Edison, Bell, Franklin, the Wright brothers, & Ford didn’t embrace that selfish philosophy, otherwise America would only have 13 states with its citizens sitting in darkness and driving horses & carriages. Unfortunately, life isn’t compartmentalized into neat little packages that you can choose to accept or reject based on how “easy” it will make your journey. Life is messy, life is hard, but life is also beautiful and precious.

I have hard goals that I set upon myself and try to achieve. having disabled children if the lottery of gene mixing happens to grant me one is not one of those goals.

Again, “you can’t selectively attempt to eradicate suffering from your life without also eradicating the emotional and spiritual depth that will be produced in your life if you embrace adversity and allow it to mold & shape your character.”

remove spiritual from the sentence above and I am very ok with it.

But if all you want is easy, then by all means….

mom29js on January 3, 2012 at 6:16 PM

let me put to you this way, i want to achieve hard goals, finding the easiest path for them, without breaking my moral code and the general moral code of society.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 6:36 PM

TigerPaw on January 3, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Charles Krauthammer was in med school when he had his accident. Despite that he STILL managed to graduate with his class!

annoyinglittletwerp on January 3, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Life Without Limbs (Nick Vujicic’s site)

Joni and Friends (Joni Eareckson Tada’s site)

TigerPaw on January 3, 2012 at 6:34 PM

can you find examples that are not religious? I am sure there are ways to cope with disabilities without being religious.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Charles Krauthammer was in med school when he had his accident. Despite that he STILL managed to graduate with his class!

annoyinglittletwerp on January 3, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Yes, he’s another good example.

Other than being highly distasteful, I also find it kind of funny in a way when I hear people say they think people with physical defects should be aborted, especially when I consider that someone like Nick Vujicic (born with no arms or legs) is happier and more well-adjusted and successful than some physically healthy people I’ve seen, including me.

(Vujicic understandably went through periods of depression when he was younger, he’s said in interviews – but he’s thriving now.)

I had a grandmother who had some strokes later in life, and as a result, lost the use of an arm, had to be fed by other people, lost the ability to speak, and she had other health problems.

I guess by the same rational Nathor uses for Down’s Syndrome babies, we should take older, feeble folks out and shoot them (definitely something I do not support either!)

TigerPaw on January 3, 2012 at 6:50 PM

can you find examples that are not religious? I am sure there are ways to cope with disabilities without being religious.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM

The point was not so much that they are “religious” but that they are people who are successful now – but they appear to be precisely the kind of people you think should have been aborted while in the womb.

TigerPaw on January 3, 2012 at 6:53 PM

I’m no Stephen Hawking expert – but he’s in a wheel chair, famous, smart… I think he’s agnostic?

His Wiki page (I know most people hate Wiki, but I figure for information like this, it’s probably fairly reliable) says he has “amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS),” aka “Lou Gehrig’s disease”

As for his religious views (wiki again), based on that page, it seems he’s agnostic, possibly atheist.

TigerPaw on January 3, 2012 at 7:02 PM

I’m no Stephen Hawking expert – but he’s in a wheel chair, famous, smart… I think he’s agnostic?

His Wiki page (I know most people hate Wiki, but I figure for information like this, it’s probably fairly reliable) says he has “amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS),” aka “Lou Gehrig’s disease”

As for his religious views (wiki again), based on that page, it seems he’s agnostic, possibly atheist.

TigerPaw on January 3, 2012 at 7:02 PM

i am a wiki fan. :)

i wrote some posts above what cases me and my wife considered that we would have an abortion or not.
complete vegetable – yes
down – yes
visual and hearing impairments – no
this are just some of the more common. i would have research the disease and discuss with my wife if a case such as Hawkins would be a yes or a no.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 7:34 PM

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 7:34 PM

I still think you’re missing the point.

I don’t see that the specific disease or handicap matters per se.

You should not have to do research to arrive at a conclusion about what to do: he or she remains a human life regardless of the type of sickness or disability he or she may have.

I saw a documentary (hosted by Joni Tada) about a family with a Down’s Syndrome child who was (at the time of filming) in her 40s or 50s, and this woman was an active member at her local church. She was living a full and active life.

Her family did not consider her a “burden,” and the people at her church loved her.

I’ve seen other interviews and news stories about people who have Down’s Syndrome, some of them hold jobs or live in apartments on their own.

Some people in parts of the world prefer sons to daughters due to social customs and culture and abort if the woman is pregnant with a girl – they would argue with you that having a son would feel like a burden to them.

When you start arguing along those lines, everything is subjective (‘we don’t want a girl,’ we want a boy; ‘we don’t want a brunette child, we prefer blonde’) and abortion for any reason can be seem to be justified.

TigerPaw on January 3, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Her family did not consider her a “burden,” and the people at her church loved her.

I’ve seen other interviews and news stories about people who have Down’s Syndrome, some of them hold jobs or live in apartments on their own.

Some people in parts of the world prefer sons to daughters due to social customs and culture and abort if the woman is pregnant with a girl – they would argue with you that having a son would feel like a burden to them.

When you start arguing along those lines, everything is subjective (‘we don’t want a girl,’ we want a boy; ‘we don’t want a brunette child, we prefer blonde’) and abortion for any reason can be seem to be justified.

TigerPaw on January 3, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Some people with down can be quite autonomous but chances are they will be quite affected. The decision is then to accept the risk or not. I do not want to take the risk.

I agree that its subjective issue in many cases. but in others it is not. complete vegetables or severe cognitive disabilities are clear cut case for abortion.

I understand your fear of a slippery slope. but its unpragmatic to deny people the option of abortion of clear cases like complete vegetables just out of the fear that the practice would be uncontrolled and brunnetes ended being aborted. if this concerns you, i would say, help find the balance instead of pushing for a complete ban on abortion.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Until you actually are having a child you have no idea what you will do.

itsspideyman on January 3, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Nathor

Many on here think Nathor is debating against them. But I think he is wrestling with God.

mtucker5695 on January 4, 2012 at 12:06 AM

Yet where are we if the life to be ‘lived’ will have none of that? Does the dying prematurely born infant even know they were loved or does the agony they were in make their brief moment of life something filled only with horror?

These are not easy situations with easy answers. They can only be dealt with case by case, and even then with prayers we are doing the right thing, for we can never be certain.

fadetogray on January 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Babies first out of the womb can tell who their mothers are. They will turn their heads to the sound of the voice of their mothers and fathers instead of a doctor. If you stick your tongue out at them, they will stick it back out at you. Babies who are held skin to skin have lower heart rates and a more stable, higher (normal) temperature.

Babies know a lot more than we think they do. And knowing your mothers voice is not instinct.

cptacek on January 4, 2012 at 12:18 AM

fadetogray on January 3, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Half the population is either mildly autistic or ADD. The other half are women.

Okay so I said I wouldn’t comment on your threads our last go around, but that’s funny- I don’t care who you are!

melle1228 on January 4, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Yesterday Carnac made repeated statements that Big Government social conservatism is in fact the opposite of true conservatism.

Carnac on January 3, 2012 at 11:57 AM
Carnac on January 3, 2012 at 2:16 PM

There were, expectedly, a few that took great offense to that concept.

Today, we have two articles released that say the same thing.

One by Erick Erickson at RedState.
The Tea Party has Failed

The other by Michael Tanner at National Review.
Santorum’s Big-Government Conservatism

I would add that each and every conversation about Santorum will eventually morph (baited by the left) into a Roe v. Wade argument that is certain to end in failure for Santorum. If he is the Republican nominee, Obama wins re-election and the United States as originally founded is lost forever. Take that to the bank.

Carnac on January 4, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Prior to that point it can be argued that in an abortion the woman is not killing the baby, but rather that she is just choosing to withdraw the use of her body. The baby’s death is incidental.

It could also be argued that firefighters could stand outside a burning building and watch people die inside because they have withdrawn the use of their body, the lives of those inside being incidental to the act. Or mountain climbing with your buddy, he slips and you grab him. If you withdraw the use of your body, he incidentally will fall to his death.

Various forms of abortion include either inducing a miscarriage or forcible removal of the baby from the mother’s body, invariably ending the child’s life prior to removal, because if it spends one second alive outside the mother’s body, it is immediately subject to all the protections afforded live-born humans. People who argue that this kind of overt, direct action is something that is only incidental to the child, is someone who is trying to kid themselves about what is taking place.

i am talking about early pregnacy abortions

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Actually, you’re not. Amniocentesis is typically done in the second trimester of pregnancy, by which point less than 10% of abortions are performed. There is a brand new procedure that can detect Down’s about a month earlier but that’s still right on the line of the first and second trimester. Bottom line: you are not talking about early pregnancy abortions, because most of the tests to determine these kind of disabilities cannot be detected that early.

And incidentally, it’s “straw man”, not “straw hat”.

it my opinion and it comes from the sincere and healthy desire of wanting to have a normal happy family and wishing the best to all my children. if it makes you sick. so be it.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Not only do I find it sick that “normal” and “happy” are considered higher priorities than “alive”, but I’d really like to know what makes that kind of desire “healthy”. Eugenics for personal convenience sounds more like being spoiled by modern medicine.

in many ways we live our lives trying to take the easiest choices without breaking our moral codes.
i have a moral code its just not the same as yours nor its derived from religion. but i try as much as i can to follow it and feel guilty if i break it.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Clearly your moral code is not the same, if you’ll make the decision to begin a human life, but then cut it short at the moment it might become hard to manage, or reach a point where you won’t eventually be able to absolve yourself of responsibility for the child. God help any of your living children if they should be in an accident and become permanently disabled. I shudder to think what might happen to them if a). they can’t reach their full potential, b). they won’t be independent of your care and c). they might be subject to the “cruelty” of being alive at less than full capacity.

The Schaef on January 4, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Babies know a lot more than we think they do. And knowing your mothers voice is not instinct.

cptacek on January 4, 2012 at 12:18 AM

I agree with that completely, but it was not what I was talking about. A brief life all spent in mind crushing agony is not a ‘gift.’

fadetogray on January 4, 2012 at 11:47 AM

It could also be argued that firefighters could stand outside a burning building and watch people die inside because they have withdrawn the use of their body, the lives of those inside being incidental to the act. Or mountain climbing with your buddy, he slips and you grab him. If you withdraw the use of your body, he incidentally will fall to his death.

If the firefighter refuses to enter the building or the mountain climber refuses to reach out his hand, declining to risk their own lives to save another, it is not murder.

We might morally judge the behavior of the firefighter and the mountain climber as cowardly, but we do not charge them with murder.

Moreover, it is only a brief use of their bodies, and it is something they agreed to beforehand. It is like comparing the circumstances and obligations of employees who can quit from day to day to that of someone forced to be a slave for nine months, including being forced to give blood every day.

Your argument is actually supportive of the position of the pro-choicers. I disagree with that position because I do not think the woman’s unspoken agreement to nurture the fetus (which she made when she chose to engage in procreative behavior) should be taken as ‘lightly’ as we take the firefighter’s agreement to save people in the burning buildings.

fadetogray on January 4, 2012 at 12:15 PM

If the firefighter refuses to enter the building or the mountain climber refuses to reach out his hand, declining to risk their own lives to save another, it is not murder.

We might morally judge the behavior of the firefighter and the mountain climber as cowardly, but we do not charge them with murder.

Actually, there are all kinds of things we charge people with for causing death “incidentally”; murder and manslaughter in degrees, accessory, negligence, and so forth. Moreover, you include an argument to “risk” which is not a given in my examples and certainly not in a pregnancy, wherein millions of babies are born every year without endangering the mother’s life in any way. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed for reasons completely unrelated to grave threat to life (other than the baby’s). So would you stipulate a ban on all abortions that do not immediately threaten the life of the mother, so that we can argue over the remaining 2%? Or do you intend to continue using the extremes to define the middle?

Moreover, it is only a brief use of their bodies, and it is something they agreed to beforehand.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but a woman is only pregnant for a temporary time span and almost invariably after engaging in consensual conduct. How is this a difference to you?

Your argument is actually supportive of the position of the pro-choicers.

In no way does my argument support pro-choicers. It exemplifies and augments the value we place on human life every single day, even to the point where people are held responsible EVEN IF the cause of death is “indirect”, which itself is a flawed argument in the case of pregnancy.

The Schaef on January 4, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Sorry for the double post, but I did not make clear that you twist the examples to suit an argument where a person who is disengaged refuses to engage themselves. I presented these examples where the other party is already engaged, which is the only true way to correlate them to a pregnancy, where the mother is most decidedly already engaged in the support role.

The Schaef on January 4, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Actually, there are all kinds of things we charge people with for causing death “incidentally”; murder and manslaughter in degrees, accessory, negligence, and so forth.

The two examples you gave were not those kind of things.

Moreover, you include an argument to “risk” which is not a given in my examples and certainly not in a pregnancy, wherein millions of babies are born every year without endangering the mother’s life in any way.

Risk is not measured by the result. Risk is an internal perception of odds. Death in childbirth is now rare, but to deny there is risk is nonsensical.

Moreover, the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed for reasons completely unrelated to grave threat to life (other than the baby’s). So would you stipulate a ban on all abortions that do not immediately threaten the life of the mother, so that we can argue over the remaining 2%? Or do you intend to continue using the extremes to define the middle?

The risk does not have to be a ‘grave threat’ to be an unacceptable risk to the person being forced to take the risk by someone else.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but a woman is only pregnant for a temporary time span and almost invariably after engaging in consensual conduct. How is this a difference to you?

I pointed to the time difference. I spoke of nine months. Do you really not see the difference between nine months and ten minutes?

And ‘almost invariably’ is not the same as ‘always.’

In no way does my argument support pro-choicers.

Just because you did not intend it to do so does not mean it did not.

It exemplifies and augments the value we place on human life every single day, even to the point where people are held responsible EVEN IF the cause of death is “indirect”, which itself is a flawed argument in the case of pregnancy.

Of course we place value on life. We also place value on people not being forced to do things they do not wish to do. We weigh those things against eachother all of the time.

My point about the death of the fetus being collateral damage is a philosophical one. The fetus is removed so the woman’s body does not continue to be used, not for the purpose of killing the fetus.

Think about it this way: Wouldn’t you still be just as aghast at abortion if the method to kill the fetus was to shut off the blood flow to it rather than directly killing it? That would kill the fetus just as certainly. It is just not done that way because we do not yet have the technology to do it without endangering the woman.

If we are going to win the philosophical argument (and we must), we have to be able to win the argument even if the death of the fetus is incidental rather than direct.

I presented these examples where the other party is already engaged, which is the only true way to correlate them to a pregnancy, where the mother is most decidedly already engaged in the support role.

The fireman was not already engaged, as you put it, but perhaps your annoyance is with my ignoring the mountain climber example after he has already grasped the falling climber’s hand.

My argument would still apply, if the mountain climber simply told us he believed they were both going to fall.

Your examples also fail because the time frame is wildly different (time matters). You are not asking the mountain climber to give the other climber a few seconds to get a grip elsewhere. You are demanding he hang on for nine months.

Let me again point out that my position is that when the woman chooses to engage in procreative behavior, she has promised to nurture the fetus, and we should not regard that promise lightly under the law.

One of the main reasons I hold the woman to a higher standard than I hold the firefighter and the mountain climber is they did not put the person at risk into the situation they are in.

Better examples would be if they were climbing down the mountain because the mountain climber had negligently crashed their airplane on the mountain (so the threat to the falling climber’s life was a direct consequence of the mountain climber’s negligence) or if the firefighter had negligently set the fire.

fadetogray on January 4, 2012 at 2:02 PM

The two examples you gave were not those kind of things.

Yes, they were. As I said earlier, you changed the example, removing the engagement aspect, and tried to make the argument about DECLINING to help someone versus WITHDRAWING from an existing engagement.

Death in childbirth is now rare, but to deny there is risk is nonsensical.

There is also infinitesimal risk in driving a car. The existence of some miniscule risk aspect adds nothing to this discussion.

Just because you did not intend it to do so does not mean it did not.

Correct. The specific differences I outlined means it does not. The lack of any reasonable correlation between what I said and a pro-choice argument also means it does not.

Do you really not see the difference between nine months and ten minutes?

I see the difference between nine months and permanent disability. If the argument is to a temporary commitment, one thing that is universal about pregnancies, they all have an expiration date.

And ‘almost invariably’ is not the same as ‘always.’

So now you intend to take my reasonable effort not to throw rape victims under the bus as “asking for it”, and use it as a bludgeon against my point despite its non-impact?

Of course we place value on life. We also place value on people not being forced to do things they do not wish to do. We weigh those things against eachother all of the time.

This is a flawed comparison because a woman is not forced against her will to engage in the process of becoming and being pregnant, rape being the sole exception.

The fetus is removed so the woman’s body does not continue to be used, not for the purpose of killing the fetus.

That is a distinction without a difference. The killing of the living human being is engaged in before the removal from the mother. The purpose does not change the method and the very specific reason they MUST be done in those ways.

Wouldn’t you still be just as aghast at abortion if the method to kill the fetus was to shut off the blood flow to it rather than directly killing it?

That’s exactly how induced miscarriages work, actually, not from cutting off the blood flow specifically, but usually by detaching the child from the womb or the use of what the eggheads call progesterone receptor antagonists. It is the natural chemical processes that are disrupted in the first trimester.

The fireman was not already engaged, as you put it, but perhaps your annoyance is with my ignoring the mountain climber example after he has already grasped the falling climber’s hand.

I don’t agree with your assessment. Deliberately seeking out that line of employment and agreeing to the terms thereto, he is contractually obligated to make all reasonable efforts to save human lives when responding to a call. It is my understanding that preserving human life is their prime directive, over and above the lives of other animals and well beyond any efforts to save the structure. A fireman that “withdraws” from an inconvenient situation is derelict in his duty and held accountable accordingly.

Your examples also fail because the time frame is wildly different (time matters).

That does not mean they fail. The key issue is whether having the power to determine if a person lives or dies, and choosing their death even when it is not a binary decision of one death versus another. The length of the time frame becomes less relevant when considering that ALL of them are finite and have a reasonable level of predictability. I might buy a distinction between withdrawing from a temporary discomfiture versus a permanent one, but not between two temporary conditions.

The Schaef on January 4, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Actually, you’re not. Amniocentesis is typically done in the second trimester of pregnancy, by which point less than 10% of abortions are performed. There is a brand new procedure that can detect Down’s about a month earlier but that’s still right on the line of the first and second trimester. Bottom line: you are not talking about early pregnancy abortions, because most of the tests to determine these kind of disabilities cannot be detected that early.

you are right. before 3 months we can only have a probability for down. i did not remembered this detail. maybe i would still do an abortion after 3 months, but it would crush me and my wife emotionally. i take back that for sure i would abort a down baby then. i just cannot predict how we would react in such situation.
any way, other tests before 3 months can still detect an wide array of malformations. and those are easier to make a decision upon.

Not only do I find it sick that “normal” and “happy” are considered higher priorities than “alive”, but I’d really like to know what makes that kind of desire “healthy”.

to me alive is not at conception. it might be alive in some technical definitions, but its fact that its very hard to get emotionally attached to a fertilized cell as it is for a new born. i think you pro lifers make some hard mental exercise of putting an emotional charge to that cell or embryo imagining its a new born baby and that feeds your anger on the issue. this anger clouds your reasoning and ability to empathize with parents like myself that deal with this issue of disabilities in early pregnancies more objectively. honestly I think this emotional mental exercise you guys do derives mostly from religious beliefs or some desire of political alignment and is not natural nor healthy.

Eugenics for personal convenience sounds more like being spoiled by modern medicine.

I would not call it eugenics. I reserve that word to choose blond over brunette which is not the case.

Clearly your moral code is not the same, if you’ll make the decision to begin a human life, but then cut it short at the moment it might become hard to manage, or reach a point where you won’t eventually be able to absolve yourself of responsibility for the child. God help any of your living children if they should be in an accident and become permanently disabled. I shudder to think what might happen to them if a). they can’t reach their full potential, b). they won’t be independent of your care and c). they might be subject to the “cruelty” of being alive at less than full capacity.

The Schaef on January 4, 2012 at 10:42 AM

no, I will love my children whatever happens to them. you are projecting. again your exaggerated emotional attachment to embryos cloud your your judgment imagining that what I feel about embryos which is very little, is what I would feel about my own child.
I will love my child, I imagine, like any other father and will handle the horrible situations you describe above, loving my child to the end, sacrificing myself for them if necessary.

nathor on January 5, 2012 at 7:13 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6