Skip to comments.Washington Post Editor Advocates Eugenics Claiming It's Her Right to Kill Babies With Down Syndrome
Posted on 03/10/2018 1:27:38 PM PST by Kaslin
Washington Post deputy editorial page editor, Ruth Marcus, penned an op-ed yesterday defending the “right” to selectively kill babies inside the mother’s womb who have been diagnosed with Down syndrome. The piece is filled superfluous nonsense that matters neither here, nor there in the main point of her argument. Marcus is not defending killing babies due to perceived disabilities, but rather asserting her belief that a woman should be able to kill the baby inside her womb at anytime and for whatever reason, without question.
“There is a new push in antiabortion circles to pass state laws aimed at barring women from terminating their pregnancies after the fetus has been determined to have Down syndrome. These laws are unconstitutional, unenforceable — and wrong,” Marcus starts off.
She then goes on to say that it’s a difficult subject to write about because “there are so many parents who have — and cherish — a child with Down syndrome.”
Then, rather perversely, Marcus pauses to mention how cute the new Gerber baby is. “Many people with Down syndrome live happy and fulfilled lives. The new Gerber baby with Down syndrome is awfully cute.”
“I have had two children; I was old enough, when I became pregnant, that it made sense to do the testing for Down syndrome,” she writes. “I can say without hesitation that, tragic as it would have felt and ghastly as a second-trimester abortion would have been, I would have terminated those pregnancies had the testing come back positive. I would have grieved the loss and moved on.”
Marcus then provides a handful of hotly debated and cherry picked statistics over the mental cognition of humans with Down syndrome and their supposed happiness. Harkening back to what she would have done if one her kids had Down syndrome, Marcus defends her option to kill her child by saying essentially, "everybody else would do it."
"I’m going to be blunt here: That was not the child I wanted. That was not the choice I would have made. You can call me selfish, or worse, but I am in good company. The evidence is clear that most women confronted with the same unhappy alternative would make the same decision," Marcus states.
But, really none of that matters. To her, it is not about Down syndrome. It is 100% about the desires and wants of the mother, irregardless of the child she carries.
"Which brings us to the Supreme Court. North Dakota, Ohio, Indiana and Louisiana passed legislation to prohibit doctors from performing abortions if the sole reason is because of a diagnosis of Down syndrome; Utah’s legislature is debating such a bill."
"These laws are flatly inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling, reaffirmed in 1992, that “it is a constitutional liberty of the woman to have some freedom to terminate her pregnancy.” Of the woman. As U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt concluded in striking down the Indiana law in September, the high court’s determination “leaves no room for the state to examine, let alone prohibit, the basis or bases upon which a woman makes her choice.”
"Technological advances in prenatal testing pose difficult moral choices about what, if any, genetic anomaly or defect justifies an abortion. Nearsightedness? Being short? There are creepy, eugenic aspects of the new technology that call for vigorous public debate," writes Ruth, alluding to the fact that it possible that it is wrong for a mother to kill her offspring simply because the child could have traits that she does not want.
Marcus ignores that science is proving that viable human life begins earlier and earlier than previously thought. She still maintains that it's her right, no matter what, to be able to have an abortion.
"But in the end, the Constitution mandates — and a proper understanding of the rights of the individual against those of the state underscores — that these excruciating choices be left to individual women, not to government officials who believe they know best," Ruth asserts.
Under that logic, abortion should be available from conception until the time of birth. And, it should be perfectly acceptable for a mother to practice eugenics by carefully choosing which child of desired traits she allows to live and which she kills. Marcus, writing for a mainstream paper such as the Washington Post, highlights the extremism that pro-abortion individuals have taken their message. For conservatives, "in the end," the argument is not about what kind of life a Down syndrome baby may lead, it is about at what point will society stop allowing the murder of innocents simply because the mother does not want their child.
What a poor excuse for a woman.
If this is your belief on parenting you are completely missing the point of life.
Let’s terminate life unworthy of life.
This was the Nazi argument for getting rid of imperfect offspring, useless eaters, the incurably ill and finally Jews.
Look where liberalism has arrived: in exactly the same place.
Wonder if they feel the same way about aborting babies that might turn out homosexual?
Marcus’ original column discussed here:
The Reich’s eugenics program was inspired by Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Barrenhood.
Yeah, as in, maybe Ruth’s mommy made the wrong “choice.”
Black folks, Hispanics, and Jews, riding the democrat tiger think they're in control but the tiger keeps them close because it believes in the old adage, "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer".
Ruth Marcus is a Jewess who supports a Final Solution for the Down Syndrome population. Their literal genocide.
My feelings towards Ms. Marcus are the same as towards Heyrich, Himmler & Hitler. She is an advocate of mass murder of the genetically “impure”.
Marcus is not defending killing babies due to perceived disabilities, but rather asserting her belief that a woman should be able to kill the baby inside her womb at anytime and for whatever reason, without question.
What if the baby is a girl and the mother wanted a son. Would it be ok to kill the baby Marcus?
And who’s goal was the extermination of the black people in America.
“Human weeds”, she called them.
We should ask that question.
I have gotten blasted for this, but the left really doesn’t give a crap about children’s lives.
If it is the same one, I apologize. I even signed on to try to be a polite conservative voice, but I can't get it to work. I used amazon. But I didn't want to link my two accounts together. Then I don't want to pay for a trial or any length of time. And then I wonder if they sell or other abuse having my valid email address.
At least Washington Post generally used to have a preponderance of thoughtful, intelligent comments and pretty even. Also fewer insults slung. Maybe they were censored out. ABC has become really horrible for conservatives. If there are any conservative voices left, I don't see many and don't waste too much time on the comments. Or main stories. I want to scream at them that we see exactly what they are up to with Trump and anyone involved with him. Demonize. Demonize. Demonize.
The down's mother link:
Liberals are quite bloodthirsty!
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.