Posted on 04/01/2013 11:08:37 PM PDT by Morgana
No, this isnt a cruel April Fools Day joke.
Today on Motherlode, a parenting blog on the website of the New York Times, a column appeared with the title Outlawing Abortion Wont Help Children with Down Syndrome.
At the beginning of the column, we find out that the columns author, Alison Piepmeier, is herself the mother of a four-year old daughter who has Down syndrome. Despite the fact that Piepmeier calls her daughter a delight and says she has been repeatedly surprised by [her daughter's] curiosity, her individual sense of humor and how much she has accomplished, she still sees absolutely nothing wrong with other parents choosing to terminate a pregnancy if the fetus/child has Down syndromeor, for that matter, any other reason.
It is perhaps also worthy of mention that Piepmeier is a professor ofwait for itwomens and gender studies. Abortion as the Protective Choice
After taking note of what she rightly calls the extremely high abortion rates for children with Down syndrome identified through prenatal screening, Piepmeier points out that some parents of children with Down syndrome are celebrating North Dakotas recently enacted ban on abortion in cases of fetal abnormalities (including, of course, Down syndrome).
Then she begins speaking nonsense: But outlawing abortion is not a reasonable response to this situation.
In other words:
Outlawing the killing of children with Down syndrome while they are still in the womb = Unreasonable. Permitting the killing of children with Down syndrome while they are still in the womb = Reasonable.
Got that?
Piepmeier goes on to recount some of the conversations she has had with women who terminated their pregnancies when they found out their baby had Down syndrome:
These were wanted pregnancies in which the fetus was already identified as a child, and often even named.
Repeatedly women told me that they ended the pregnancy not because they wanted a perfect child (as one woman said, I dont know what perfect child even means) but because they recognized that the world is a difficult place for people with intellectual disabilities.
Piepmeier goes on to note, chillingly:
One woman told me, The thing is I could not, in good conscience, from the get-go, know that my child has these setbacks in life. Another identified adulthood as the challenge: There is no part of caring for an infant or school-aged child with Down syndrome that we didnt think we could handle. We chose to terminate mostly on the basis of our understanding of the challenges and quality of life he and our family would face if/when he lived to be over age 21: his middle age, and end of life. [emphasis added]
Note the if/when above.
Recognizing that their son or daughter might not ever live to adulthood, this couple elected to have an abortion anyway.
Piepmeier goes on:
Another woman talked quite a bit about rape. She was assaulted as a child, she knew that the statistics for sexual abuse were high for people with intellectual disabilities, and she was determined that her daughter would not experience that, so that was one of the reasons she terminated her pregnancy. She referred to her abortion several times as the protective choice.
Clearly, no oneespecially someone who was herself a victim of child abusewants any child to become a victim of rape or other form of abuse.
And equally clearly, no one is in a position to be able to judge the subjective culpability of this womanor, for that matter, of any womanwho has had an abortion.
But objectively, the act of killing a child out of a desire to protect that very child from harm is quite literally irrational. Abortion a Matter Between a Woman and Her Doctor?
There is one group of people who are not mentioned at all in Piepmeiers article: namely, doctors.
This is a rather curious omission, one would think, especially considering how often the talking point about abortion being a matter between a woman and her doctor is bandied about by the pro-choice movement.
From reading Piepmeiers article, one might easily think that the women she interviewed who had abortions after discovering their children had Down syndrome came to their decisions on their own.
But most peoples instincts wouldnt let them arrive at such rationalizations by themselves. They can only get there with the helpand implicit encouragementof a doctor.
Piepmeier goes on to write a sentence that serves exactly no purpose but to illustrate the supposed hypocrisy of pro-lifers:
If North Dakota really does want it to be a great day for babies in North Dakota and wants to prove that a civil society does not discriminate against people for their sex or for disability, it should make the state a welcoming place for people with diPro-abortion protesters at League-sponsored Face the Truth Day in Chicago, 2009 [Photo by Sam Scheidler]sabilities.
OK. So if, by every possible measure, North Dakota became the most welcoming state in the U.S. for people with disabilities, then could it go ahead and enact a ban on abortion in cases of fetal abnormalities?
Nope. She concludes with this:
Let women have abortions for whatever reason they choose, but make it a world they would like to bring a child into even a child with an intellectual disability. [emphasis added]
And there you have it.
It took a while, but in the end, Piepmeier makes clear that even if every step possible were taken to offer help to pregnant women in need, the tired old boilerplate of Abortion on demand and without apology! trumps all.
[[Outlawing Abortion Wont Help Kids with Down Syndrome, Killing Them Will?]]
These pukes can’t even ‘man up’ and be hoenst abotu hteir hate for morality and life- what they really mean is ‘outlawing abortion won’t help mothers rid themselves of the ‘burden’ of raising kids with down’s syndrome’ (Note, I am NOT saying kids with DS are burdens- I aM sayign that that is how the left feels- such children woudl hamper their style i ntheirm inds-)
These pukes espousing aborting ANY child are worthless pieces of ....
If it is one thing I have noticed it is that Planned Parenthood/the abortion industry really does not like babies with down syndrome. More than any other birth defect they want this one aborted. No clue as to why.
In moving from Upstate NY to GA, I noticed Down’s kids went from almost none to almost common.
Becasue kids with downs syndrom take more care, which means that promiscuous mothers aren’t as free to go out and sleep aroudn any longer- it’s cramping hteir style- They want to be free fro mthe extra responsibilities so hey can keep up the promiscous lifestyles they had before they ‘accidently became pregnant’
A must see video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA8VJh0UJtg&feature=player_embedded
“In moving from Upstate NY to GA, I noticed Downs kids went from almost none to almost common.”
And it ain’t because we “marry our first cousins down here”.
“yefragetuwrabrumuy” made this comment:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3000566/posts (Post #5)
I see a somewhat different story here.
I noticed a grocery store where every bagger and back room stock person seemed to be at least mildly retarded, in a real way. So I mentioned to a salaried cashier that the grocery seems to prefer hiring the handicapped.
No kidding!, they said. And every other grocery in the city would be happy to hire them.
He continued, Someone like them are rare among employees. They are *always* on time to work, *always* happy to work, more than willing to do any chore they are asked to do, and they generally lack most of the personal problems that other hires have. They dont steal, gossip, fight, slack off, anything.
Finally he said that one of the really frustrating things is that they will hire someone, and they never show up to work. We never hear from them again after they accept a job offer.
The last normal hire they had, when he took a break, went out in front of the grocery and started smoking a joint. He didnt seem to comprehend that marijuana is illegal, and was puzzled when the manager fired him.
We could end child-rape in our life times simply by killing all the children.
This creates the bizarre situation where the state decides which children are healthy enough to be killed.
When I started, the camp population was almost exclusively Down Syndrome children. About 60 kids having the time of their lives each summer.
Now, the camp population is about 90% autistic. We see maybe three or four kids with Downs Syndrome, if that many.
The children who aren't there anymore obviously received "the protective choice."
I’d agree with you only that most mothers in these cases are in fact married and are not “sleeping around”. Usually it is the whole family that decides the abortion is necessary. Mother, father, grandparents et cetera.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.