Palin's unusual choice to bear Trig

Salon writer and doctor Rahul K. Parikh writes in support of the pro-choice politic about Trig Palin and Sarah's choice to not kill him in her womb.
By knowingly giving birth to a Down syndrome child, Palin represents a minority of women. A 2002 study found that about 90 percent of pregnancies in the United States where the fetus was diagnosed with Down syndrome were terminated. A Rabid anti-choice activists have called that trend eugenics via medicine. But try telling that to a mother who is told early on in her pregnancy that she will be raising a child who will have a host of medical and developmental problems, requiring intense medical and social attention for the rest of his or her life. It can be tragic and nearly impossible news to bear. Kids with special needs require and deserve intense therapies and attention to their needs. That's likely something Palin, with her political and social stature, can afford both financially and emotionally. But that may not be the case for other families, who have to struggle to balance work with home and family. They simply may not be up to the challenge of raising a child with Down syndrome. Sadly, kids with developmental problems like Down syndrome are at a higher risk for being abused by parents and other caregivers.

It's not the child's fault that his life will be hard, so why kill him?
A better response to the bizarre reasoning can be found in this Touchstone post, excerpt,
The great irony of the attempt of modern hubris to control human life for its own good by scientific means will be that as these means grow more powerful and invasive, so will the inability to define the human good toward which its Promethean wisdom strives. Those who doubt it should meditate on the increasingly fractured universe of discourse in our age on what is good, true, and beautiful. Recently I was sent an article whose writer identified the willingness to allow a Down Syndrome child to come to term, to be born and nurtured, as an ugly fundamentalist perversion, a fanatic’s badge of self-righteousness worn at the expense of a world which must bear this lebensunwertes Leben unjustly forced upon it, not a sign of love, based in the conviction that in God’s eyes we are all like these children, and no less to be loved for it, but a sign of evil--exterminating them as much a sign of the good as keeping them is wicked.


GrannyGrump said…
There is a two year waiting list to adopt kids with DS, so the "We have to abort them if their parents aren't up to the challenge" is lame even on purely utilitarian counts.

And if parents are entitled to snuff Junior if he's found to be "too burdensome" in-utero, why be so unfair as to draw the line at birth? Shouldn't ALL parents get the chance to say, "Thanks, but no thanks!" if the kid is diagnosed with a problem -- or becomes sick or injured -- after birth?

After all, if it's all about avoiding hardship, even John List made good choices.

Popular Posts