I stole borrowed a pair of links from Brothers Judd which help explain why feminists are so rabid in their hatred of Sarah Palin. For all the talk about her support of "anti-woman" policies, what the feminists really mean is her staunchly and stridently pro-life opinions, expressed most eloquently in her son, Trig.
Indeed, Palin's sudden high profile has some people worried that fewer abortions may be sought. The dark underside of the pro-choice argument is that producing less than "perfect" people is an unacceptable lifestyle (this argument was used at Pandagon for questioning Palin's fitness for the presidency).
Palin's story of deciding to give birth to her disabled son Trig despite knowing he would be afflicted with Down syndrome, has been an encouragement to families with special needs children.
But it's bad news to André Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada.
"The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada," he told the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper Tuesday.
According to the paper, Lalonde said that, "above all else, women must be free to choose" and that positive messages like the one from Palin "could have detrimental effects on women and their families."
How is it "detrimental" for women to see that having a special needs child is not catastrophic? Indeed, I would think such information should be lauded.
I have more than a passing interest in the issues surrounding handicapped people; my ex-husband and father of my oldest child is handicapped. At a time when mainstreaming was just a theory, he was breaking the barriers for the disabled by attending schools with "normal" people and showing that many of the fears regarding accessibility were simply nonsense.
The dirty secret of the pro-abortionists is that women have a duty not to give birth to less than perfect children. They don't want to talk about it, but that's what the elevation of individual choice over any obligations to others actually amounts to. But Trig Palin has shined the spotlight on eugenics abortion, just as abortion supporters have tried to argue that they are not personally opposed to Palin's decision, but that her support of life is anti-woman. It's difficult to accept this particular logic unless you stand logic on its head; but then, supporting abortion typically comes down to standing logic on its head. We support a woman's "right to choose," even if in choosing we end the choice of others.
Unlike what is accorded African Americans and women, civil rights protections for people with Down syndrome have rapidly eroded over the past few decades. Of the cases of Down syndrome diagnosed by prenatal testing each year, about 90 percent are eliminated by abortion. Last year the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended universal, early testing for Down syndrome -- not just for older pregnant women. Some expect this increased screening to reduce the number of Down syndrome births to something far lower than the 5,500 we see today, perhaps to fewer than 1,000.
The wrenching diagnosis of 47 chromosomes must seem to parents like the end of a dream instead of the beginning of a life. But children born with Down syndrome -- who learn slowly but love deeply -- are generally not experienced by their parents as a curse but as a complex blessing. And when allowed to survive, men and women with an extra chromosome experience themselves as people with abilities, limits and rights. Yet when Down syndrome is detected through testing, many parents report that genetic counselors and physicians emphasize the difficulties of raising a child with a disability and urge abortion.
This is properly called eugenic abortion -- the ending of "imperfect" lives to remove the social, economic and emotional costs of their existence. And this practice cannot be separated from the broader social treatment of people who have disabilities. By eliminating less perfect humans, deformity and disability become more pronounced and less acceptable. Those who escape the net of screening are often viewed as mistakes or burdens. A tragic choice becomes a presumption -- "Didn't you get an amnio?" -- and then a prejudice. And this feeds a social Darwinism in which the stronger are regarded as better, the dependent are viewed as less valuable, and the weak must occasionally be culled.
My personal journey from pro-choice supporter to pro-life advocate was long and occasionally tortuous. But I would guess that a lot of people have similar experiences: it's one thing to support "choice" in the abstract, when you are dealing with other people's situations and you don't want to seem judgmental. It's quite another when you are the person in the doctor's office being asked if you want the test for Down's Syndrome and why not, if you say no? Accepting that life isn't perfect but that you will take that chance is risky. But determining that someone else's right to life is less important than one's desire to do as one pleases is evil.
|