In ancient Greece, babies with disabilities were left out in the elements to die. We in America rely on prenatal genetic testing to make our selections in private, but the effect on society is the same.
Margaret's old pediatrician tells me that years ago he used to have a steady stream of patients with Down syndrome. Not anymore. Where did they go, I wonder. On the west side of L.A., they aren't being born anymore, he says. ...
That's the rational pitch; here's the emotional one. Margaret is a person and a member of our family. ... What I don't understand is how we as a society can tacitly write off a whole group of people as having no value.
-- Patricia E. Bauer
I find this sort of thing distasteful. I ask of you Ms Bauer, if there was a test that determined on Day Five of pregnancy that the embryo would grow into a Downs Syndrome child, it would be akin to leaving baby's out on the hill to die? Would we consider it a heartless disrespect of humanity? Well, what if we determined a way to tell if conceiving on Thursdays would cause Downs Syndrome? I assume, parents who do not have sex on that day to prevent this are basically practicing eugenics.
Basically, Ms Bauer must oppose abortion per se. You abort in cases of rape -- you dispose of many potential beautiful children and members of the family. One can go on, except perhaps if it seriously threatens a woman's life or health. But, should we kill a member of the family just on the 30% chance the mother will die? If we abort, we basically "tacitly write off a group of people as having no value." No, sorry, Ms. Bauer, the fact you love your daughter does not allow you to get away with emotionally tinged fallacious arguments.
Emotional appeals are powerful and sometimes they are proper -- we are human beings, emotional appeals are human. For instance, there are various reasons to support animal rights and/or welfare, including the basic fact that it feels bad. Our emotions sometimes fails us, but emotion is often an accurate judge of right and wrong. But, sometimes they are dangerous, since it is hard to compete against them. And, you basically might even feel bad ... even if you are completely right. I am not completely right about things -- I am not infallible -- but you know what I mean.
This is why though I'm emotional in various instances, I am wary about making things personal when I argue a point. For instance, we have various sorts using 9/11 in emotional ways to promote ends that I find distasteful, or at least simply misguided. You know "you are either for or against us." This sort of thing pisses me off. I spent my life in New York City. I saw the smoke that day -- I was miles away, but I still saw the smoke -- not on television. And, my "leaders" (and others, many not New Yorkers) use the matter in crummy ways. This pisses me off in various ways, including on a personal level. But, that only takes you so far, right? You need more to point out the problems there.
This is why I can think women in skirts are cute ("Abby" is also a cute name ... though surely some men wear skirts and a few probably have the name Abby ... and not only those who wear kilts) and still speak against anti-gay laws and practices. Are we not to attack Ms Bauer because of who her daughter is? I'm not sure -- is she suggesting ever one who has a child with some related disability must be on the same page as her and think "the effect" of killing newborns are akin to second trimester abortions? Except for the sad cases recently noted in the news, the polio vaccine generally kept children from being stricken, is this "in effect" akin to killing newborns with polio? The net effect -- no children with polio -- is the same, right?
Mind you, there is something there -- abortion is chosen for many reasons, and a "disability" per se is arguably not so much less "immoral" than certain other situations -- I think the selective habit of exempting only rape/disability is questionable. Sometimes, other abortions are as or perhaps even more defensible. But, this does not suggest those aborted have "no value" -- or, perhaps, if the unborn was carried to term, they would not. This is particularly notable: the potential is not that actual -- your lovely child is just not akin to a fetus. The comparison is specious.
Nor, is it somehow evil to not want to bring disabled children into this world. Medical developments over the years fight various ailments and try to reduce the number of disabilities. Many who have these disabilities are perfectly lovely souls, but we try to prevent them all the same -- I assume the fact your daughter has Downs Syndrome is not the reason you love her. You love her for her -- so again, why limit it to this class? We have a lot fewer pregnant teenage girls going "away" these days too, this leads to fewer beautiful children with their dad's eyes as well. btw testing for Downs Syndrome is not a 21st century thing -- this sort of thing was done for years. The editorial suggests otherwise.
Finally, a word on another class -- the disabled themselves. Some -- again only some, since the disabled are not some singleminded group that march in lockstep -- suggest those who support abortion rights or the right to choose when to die or whatever are anti-disabled. The old slippery slope -- they aren't dead yet, etc. Choose to cut off the life support of Terry Schiavo, and who knows who is next -- maybe, perfectly wonderful old auntie will be "put out of her misery" because she is disabled or a burden. etc.
But, I don't understand ... I don't have a disabled daughter etc. It is unclear how we manage to write laws in this country then ... if only those directly affected by them can make the decisions. Of course, this might go the other way -- it might cause one to be biased. Nah ....
Anyway, I find this sort of thing distasteful.