How would you define "damaged"? Is this child "damaged"?
.jpg)
How about this one?
Or perhaps my wife, who was born deaf, blind in one eye, and with musculoskeletal deformities? Would she be allowed to be born, or is she a burden on society?
I can't see the problem with deciding whether or not to give birth to a damaged child, except that if you decide knowingly to do so, you ought not to get insurance or welfare or otherwise be allowed to drain the public purse to support that choice.
If you choose to bear a damaged child and you can take care of it yourself, God bless you for it and more power to you and your family.
I really don't see the problem otherwise.
That kind of clear thinking isn't allowed on FreeRepublic after the invasion of the ShaivoNuts. Get ready to be blasted.
Kate, you seem to peg yourself in the 'fiscal conservative' but 'socially progressive' categories. May I point out the logical conclusion of your premises?
I note you acknowledge the procreation as a child.
You've framed keeping 'something damaged' alive as a fiscal responsibility rather than a moral imperative.
You've just subjected all humanity to a Kelo ruling, fiscal eminent domain.
Do you realize this?
So you agree with abortion. How about euthanasia for those born with undetected medical problems? Which ones, according to your ethic, are acceptable or should all diseased infants be terminated?
And how about folks who are injured in an accident or by communicable disease, or old folks suffering from dementia, congestive heart failure, or end stage kidney disease? Don't they also "drain the public purse"?
If you deny insurance coverage for "a damaged child" (horrible term! Sounds like "unworthy of life") then those cases are next.
Hope you see the slippery slope you just stepped out on.
How do you define a damanged child? Is it a child with Down Syndrome, Autism, or other learning disabilities? Is it a child that has problems with its organs (I read of a woman who aborted a child with a small bladder)? Is it a child who will be asthmatic? Or maybe diabetic? Maybe with genetic testing we will know who will have cancer at the age of 45 and maybe those people should be eliminated before birth and before they put a strain on medical insurance and social services? How do you decide what a damaged child is and when the parents should take care of it themselves? WHO draws that line and where does it end?
Defective is a more elegant term.
How would you define "damaged"? Is this child "damaged"?
How about this one?
Or perhaps my wife, who was born deaf, blind in one eye, and with musculoskeletal deformities? Would she be allowed to be born, or is she a burden on society?
"I really don't see the problem otherwise."
Really? Using your logic, old folks who are a burden ought to be "put to sleep", right?
You're advocating then for aborting children who are disabled. there is no other word for it. I don't think I need to be blessed for raising a child with a disability; - I and my family are the ones who are blessed. Every day I am grateful for having the opportunity to know her and to know other kids like her that essentially make the world a sunnier place. Their smallest triumph is the biggest to those who raise them.
It is believed that Chopin suffered and died of cystic fibrosis Death and Funeral
"I can't see the problem with deciding whether or not to give birth to a damaged child, except that if you decide knowingly to do so, you ought not to get insurance or welfare or otherwise be allowed to drain the public purse to support that choice."
Are you for real?
If YOU ever become "damaged", be sure that you do not use insurance or welfare or otherwise drain the public purse to support your choice to go on living.
Translation: (Even CLEARER thinking)
"You can keep your brainless pet; but the rest of us would have offed the little bugger!"
Do you have a problem with killing off the elderly and the unemployed or anyone else who doesn't meet your economic criteria?
If you choose to bear a damaged child and you can take care of it yourself, God bless you for it and more power to you and your family.
Here's the way I see it: As a society, we make a moral judgment to value and protect life. This is a good thing, as it protects the individual. Part of valuing life is valuing the most vulnerable. We say that every human being has the ability to contribute something, even if they can only do so through their very existence. If we, as a group, say that we will not protect, comfort and nourish the weak, we devalue human life.
Once we devalue the unborn, we devalue the handicapped, then we devalue the old, finally the very young and those who are simply stupid.
Saying that only those handicapped who's families can afford to care for them are worthy of life devalues life and devalues us all.
The problem comes when we extend our protection to those who are NOT weak. We encourage weakness in those who would be strong.