Pressure to Keep the Baby? (Trig Palin and Abortion)

The public presence of little Trig Palin is a powerful witness to the sanctity of human life, and the knowledge that this little infant with Down syndrome is bringing such joy to his family is upsetting those who believe that babies such as Trig should never be born.

The facts are daunting. It is now estimated that between 80 and 90 percent of all unborn babies diagnosed as likely to have Down syndrome are aborted. The availability of prenatal testing presents parents with the possibility of aborting the baby and starting over. The statistics now speak for themselves - the vast majority of parents are choosing to abort under these circumstances.

But the visible presence of Trig Palin in the arms of his parents or one of his sisters is resetting that equation, at least in terms of the public's emotions. The sight of little Piper Palin licking her hand and flattening Trig's hair during their mom's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention is likely to stick in the public mind years after Trig's hair is again unstuck. It's hard for even the most ardent abortion defenders to insert an argument against Trig's precious life at that point. Or, at least we would think so.

At least one highly-placed source objects to the whole picture. Writing in The Globe and Mail [Toronto], Dr. André Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, explained his worry that other parents might feel pressure to follow the Palins' example.

As the paper explains:

Dr. Lalonde said that above all else, women must be free to choose, and that popular messages to the contrary could have detrimental effects on women and their families.

"The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada," he said.

Taken at face value, the paper seems to be suggesting that a decision to keep the baby contradicts the doctor's assertion that "women must be free to choose." In other words, the only "right" choice would be to abort the baby.

Given the relatively few words quoted from Dr. Lalonde, it is possible that his quote is not fully representative of his position. If this is true, he should certainly make this clear. A look at the Web site of the SOGC indicates that this statement might well be representative of his position.

The group has announced its clear opposition to a proposed Unborn Victims of Crime Act - an act that would allow courts to consider an unborn baby as a victim in assault or murder cases. Such laws are not uncommon in the United States, but the SOGC has taken the position that, once an unborn baby is recognized to have a legal existence and right to live, the entire question of abortion and "reproductive rights" takes on a new frame.

The descent into the Culture of Death is fueled by language such as found here - that a woman might be "pressured to keep the baby" in light of Trig Palin's visibility. At the same time, the inherent evil of such abortions and the slander against humanity represented by the abortion of these babies comes to bright light in Trig Palin's little face.

Maybe Dr. Lalonde and his colleagues are right to be worried. The entire question has been reset by one precious little infant.

___________________________________________________

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to www.sbts.edu. Send feedback to mail@albertmohler.com. Original Source: www.albertmohler.com.

Adapted from R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s weblog at www.albertmohler.com.

I’d rather stay out of this, other than to say that although I’ve only read some of the comments (since I’ve been pinged repeatedly), it seems like donna is trying to make a macroeconomic statement about organization of societies in terms of oppression and so forth—as I said I’ve barely taken time to read much on this thread—while jacquej and who knows who else are coming at the topic from a personal experience angle. If I’ve failed to capture the spirit of this thread, please eject me into the dark pit of my previous angst/euphoria trying to help defeat the bona-fide communist that seeks the Oval Office(!).

For myself, I believe in Patriarchy and traditional gender roles within a context of marginal social liberty for women to adopt non-traditional roles if they so choose; if as an individual any given woman sees that she for whatever reason isn’t suited for the traditional role of homemaker, and genuinely knows in her bones that she and society are better off with her competing with men for prominence in public life, industry, science, academia, what have you—so be it. But as an overall attitude for all women, I believe feminism is HIGHLY detrimental for everyone.

I see “feminism” as being interpreted in mutually antagonistic and clashing ways on this thread. Feminism is indeed a controversial and confounding topic. My own take is that “feminism” can be as benevolent as a social reformation against long-standing abuses of/by the Patriarchy, and/or as evil as a vendetta against males by power-mad female communists who’d just as soon chime in with Weather-woman Bernadine Dorhn’s exultant praise of the Manson Family’s rampage at the Tate/LaBianca ranch. Google Dorhn’s exact quote on that, if you dare. I remind the reader that Sharon Tate was pregnant at the time of her truly heinous and grisly murder. Very fitting that Hussein Obama followed Dohrn around since 1981; that “No Fetus Left Alive” program of his is obviously their “brainchild.”

“Helter Skelter” is the penultimate expression of anti-capitalist feminism; the long-haired, draft-dodging drugged-out hippie males abandoning their proper warrior roles in the struggle against communism in Southeast Asia, and instead perverting their remnant masculinity through brainwashed females in a completely twisted revolution taken to a nightmarish and bizarre, bloody extreme.

Marx and other founders of communism sought to replace the family with the state. BAD idea; even worse is that it has been fully realized to disastrous results elsewhere, and is steadily progressing here in America, even though the Manson Family was supposedly dissolved long ago.

But I COULD still be mad at my mother for reasons that I’ll not go into, even though she’s invited me to vent my spleen here. I’d just rather not.

Well, I’ve read some more of donna’s comments, and I must say she makes some relevant, even if disturbing to our campaign, points!

I was gleeful that McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, mostly because she’s such a kick-ass and refreshing and real Reagan-esque conservative, and partly because by running Sarah as Veep, we are BEATING THE LIBERALS AT THEIR OWN SICK, AFFIRMATIVE-ACTION “DIVERSITY” GAME.

How can we counter the evils of feminism unless we promote our own female champion, a Trojan Mare, if you will?

Gov. Palin’s own example shows that we cannot beat the leftist feminazis with male candidates/campaigns/cajones: Every prominent male that has opposed her, from EITHER party in Alaska, and on the national stage (including Charlie Gibson and Joe Biden) has LOST, big time. Gibson’s career may never recover, and Biden is even more of a national joke than ever. It was Dukakis that sunk Ferraro, not Quayle, nor Bush Sr.

The point is that it’s NEVER a fair fight when a male is pitted against a female—we boys are trained from bitrth that hitting girls is taboo, and so despite our advantage in strength and size, girls have the double-whammy of societal protection along with expertise in subterfuge developed early on when both their cerebral hemispheres co-ordinated, as ours were rather bifurcated.

The conservative movement, paradoxically, needs a neo-feminist (or, you come up with a better term) like Sarah, to make it a fair catfight. Males just aren’t allowed to beat females on our own turf anymore! I disagree with the whole arrangement, but it is what it is for now. I could raise holy hell at my workplace on a daily basis when they say that discrimination based on race, gender, etc., etc., is forbidden, even as they in the same breath enforce mandatory discrimination against white males, but hey—I need the job, and must find other ways to further the revolution than direct confrontation (I’ve tried that, with mostly bad results).

Sarah’s nomination was our answer to Hussein’s missed opportunity in failing to nominate Hillary, and Sarah is what—if ANYTHING does—will make that failure on Hussein’s part plain on Nov 4th.

I’m willing to live with the obvious moral hazards of having our Veep nominee possibly embody the utmost in GOP hypocrisy and feministic decay of the hearth—I’m willing to risk all that because I see the situation as such: We conservatives must learn to act, ourselves, as a counter-culture, to adopt Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals” too, if we are to fully engage and defeat the truly diabolical Left. Yes we will be scathed; we will not emerge from battle uncorrupted and intact. But as with the internment camps of World War II, after the war is won freedom will ring again; liberties will be restored to even greater degree; conservative principles will reign, because Sarah is truly the anti-Obama.

The campaign is but for a season. If installed as Veep, Sarah’s life will settle down drastically, and her duties will permit nurturing of her family to a much more drastically improved extent than now. donna has to realize this.

Although I think that most of what you've said is either correct or reasonably defensible, I'm puzzled by this:

I’m willing to live with the obvious moral hazards of having our Veep nominee possibly embody the utmost in GOP hypocrisy and feministic decay of the hearth

Do you believe the Palins' children are neglected and poorly reared, simply by the fact of her holding a political position? That everything, both good and bad, in that family is a reflection of parental abandonment? Do you believe their father is chopped liver and not a significant member of his family?

Or did the use of "possibly" in your sentence back you off that position, held by at least one poster?

I haven’t really considered very deeply the idea that Palin family problems are related to her career. My point has more to do with the willingness to accept that possibility in the name of getting an ace of our own—her, namely—into a position where she might do the most damage to the very dystopia that has created such a culture.

But it’s very risky running such clandestine cultural warfare.

Put more simply, it’s like accepting the fact that a deep undercover police officer may have to repeatedly smoke and very likely become addicted to crack in order to play the role of drug denizen believeably, and not get his ass killed by the real dealers. Or, the idea of former sixties radicals who pretend to “go straight,” put on suits and ties, and get jobs on Wall Street or become tenured University of Chicago department chairs, etc., in order to continue the revolution by stealth, as relative “squares,” and bring the whole system down from within—yes, the William Ayers’ & Bernadine Dohrns often become much like the very same millionaire bourgoise swine that they set out to slaughter, but look at the situation we are in now and tell me they aren’t succeeding with their original mission!

Want another example? The U.S. Special Forces member deployed deep in the Afghan mountains who’s ordered to grow a full, flowing beard and wear a towel on his head and ride around horseback in a dirty nightshirt with a Kalashnikov and scimitar so as to blend in with the locals, putting brown contact lenses in to camouflage his blue eyes...after a few too many months in the bush, he “goes native”—falls for an Afghan girl, converts to Islam for real, marries into the local warlord’s tribe, parttakes of the opium trade and disappears from his unit’s radar, never to be debriefed or discharged or court-martialed...he’s Col. Kurtz from Apocalypse Now, if you will.

The point is that Palin may have a dysfunctional family typical of our mixed-up times, but running her as our Veep and the vanguard of our conservative movement isn’t merely the height of hypocrisy; it’s more likely the height of high intrigue to risk that she defects or is damaged from the mission, and we along with her.

But it’s a risk we must take if we are to fight the war, rather than simply abandon the field to the enemy forever.

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.