 |
Comments |
|
 | Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 15:22:54 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Robert Speirs
E-mail: robspe43(at)gmail.com
I have some problems with Provenzo's article. It sounds like he is saying that a woman who identifies her fetus as having Down's syndrome has a moral duty to Society to abort her fetus, because that baby has no realistic chance of being a productive member of society. I don't think he really means that, but it comes out that way. And I find that repellent, almost Kantian. If a man and woman want to raise a child with defects, no one should be able to tell them they can't, as long as they don't ask anyone else to be responsible for the costs of raising the child. This appears to have been Sarah Palin's situation. To say otherwise is to give Society veto power over every birth. Another point: if you say that women with "problem" babies should abort them, you risk establishing an implicit principle that in order for a woman to have an abortion the baby must have a defect, as defined by Society. |
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 15:53:17 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: madmax
E-mail: max34(at)wlcm.net
"I have some problems with Provenzo's article. It sounds like he is saying that a woman who identifies her fetus as having Down's syndrome has a moral duty to Society to abort her fetus, because that baby has no realistic chance of being a productive member of society."
Yes, I got that sense too. I think that is the part which attracted the attention, and thus the wrath, of the Conservatives and Libertarians. Nick mentions the cost to society of such a retarded child if the parents can't afford it. I know what he meant by this. He is taking today's welfare state as a given. But for those people who don't share Objectivism's context, this could sound like and advocacy of eugenics. If it wasn't for that section of the blog post I don't think it would have been noticed. To a Conservative, it would have been just another pro-abortion piece. But the cost to society part made it sound like Nick believes that *society* must conduct a cost/benefit analysis to see if the baby should be allowed to live. Now obviously that is not Nick's argument, but to out-of-context Conservatives it could easily be perceived as that. Nick really didn't need that paragraph in his post. I'm glad he clarified things with his follow-up. |
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 16:13:31 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Dan G.
The phrase, "productive member of society" doesn't appear anywhere; nice strawman. He said, "[...]is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) [...] " Capacity for productivity is important, since we all know that productive activity is the source of self-esteem, and therefore joy.
NOWHERE does Nick state anything about cost to society, the only mention of society come's from his quotation of George Will... another strawman. The costs mentioned were the costs to the parents. |
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 16:33:02 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: JamesB
E-mail: Bandler33(at)hotmail.com
Dan G.,
First of all, calm down. I'm not attacking Nick, only suggesting that his blog post had a potentially misleading element to it. Here is the sentence that I was referring to:
"Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision, unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child's life upon others."
I'll amend what I said slightly. Nick did not use the words "cost to society" but he did write "they are essentially stranding the cost of their child's life upon others." This is what I was referring to when I said that it was potentially misleading. An anti-abortionist could read this as saying that abortions should be mandatory if a person can not afford the cost of the child's life. Now I realize that anti-abortionists would object to the post either way but it was this element, "the cost of the child's life upon others," that, IMO, set off the fireworks. Other than that, it was similar in content to Diana's post on the worship of retardation. But Diana's post did not mention the cost to others of raising the child. Her post really focused in on the Christian reaction to the birth. The cost to others confused the issue IMO and was non-essential to the rest of the post. |
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 16:43:55 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Dan G.
Sorry I don't follow James, are you using two handles?
I don't think there is anything wrong with that phrase, it is a solid fact. To narrowly interpret it as societal support is, I think, misleading (hence my reaction, the 2 comments reeked of shilling). I understand why such a leap would be made, since government support is the dominant mode these days, but a non-functioning human is a burden to others, period. |
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 16:54:55 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: lucas
I'm pro-choice too and I thought it was a bad post. In the last sentence he is saying that Palin new that his child was gonna have DS and she had it anyway, therefore, she is a worshiper or retardation. I'd say that that is a pretty retarded inference, and a gratuitous, tasteless offense. |
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 17:00:20 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Dan G.
Care to elaborate lucas? |
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 17:00:57 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Robert Speirs
E-mail: robspe43(at)gmail.com
I went back and re-read Provenzo's post. Mr madmax is not me and he is right. This paragraph:
"A parent has a moral obligation to provide for his or her children until these children are equipped to provide for themselves. Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision, unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child's life upon others."
sets up an argument of which I cannot approve.
The "because" caught my eye. Surely asking someone else to care for your child is immoral, even more so if this "asking" is backed up by governmental force. But jumping to the conclusion that having a defective child is equivalent to forcing your choice on others is to assume no honest men exist. That conclusion I cannot accept. |
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 17:04:39 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: lucas
Dan G.
Well, just read the last sentence:
"Given that Palin had complete foreknowledge of her child's severe disability yet nevertheless chose to have it, it is hard not to see her choice as anything less." (anything less than a worshiper of retardation)
Isn't he saying that if one has a child knowing that he will have DS, then the mother is a worshiper of retardation? Personally I don't think this is true. One can still choose to have the child despite of the defect, without meaning that one worships the defect. |
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 17:17:52 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
Yikes. That cesspool of comments needs to be kept as an example of what passes for "thinking" among libertarians and conservatives, and a reminder of why those people are not the friends of freedom. |
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 17:40:35 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: z
E-mail: shekfu(at)hotmail.com
I've never seen so much misinterpretation of someone's position as I have in the case of Diana's and Nick's articles. There are people claiming D&N advocate an obligation to society to abort DS fetuses. The people who extend the imaginary implications of D&N's argument to killing DS babies and adults is just ludicrous. |
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 18:08:36 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
Robert said: "Surely asking someone else to care for your child is immoral..." I must disagree with this assertion. Voluntary charity is not immoral. Nor is adoption or the like, etc..
"But jumping to the conclusion that having a defective child is equivalent to forcing your choice on others is to assume no honest men exist." How do you reach this conclusion? And what bearing does 'honesty' have upon this conclusion?
Is it your position most individuals can afford the costs associated with raising a disabled child (especially a severely disabled)? If not, then does not the DECISION to give birth to such a child, despite one's inability to afford it, indeed 'strand' "the cost of their child's life upon others"? If you cannot afford something, where are the additional funds to come from if NOT from others?
Or is your statement made ENTIRELY OUTSIDE of Nick's GIVEN CONTEXT - ie outside the context of KNOWINGLY choosing such a path? In other words, is your statement made about those who, through no fault or prior knowledge of their own, give birth to a disabled child? |
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 22:14:04 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: z
E-mail: shekfu(at)hotmail.com
This controversy is so disorganized. Here's my stab at cleaning it up:
Advocating the right to a particular action doesn't necessarily imply advocating the particular action.
Abortion is an absolute right.
A woman should not take it lightly.
A fetus has no rights. (even moments before birth, though this is rare and not relatively important.)
An individual with DS is not immoral for so being.
A woman who chooses to bear a DS baby is not necessarily immoral.
A woman who gives birth to a DS baby is not extra special, nor exempt from moral judgment, including Palin.
DS is not a badge of honor or something to be looked up to in and of itself.
A person with DS likely has to face enormous obstacles to be a self-sufficient adult, and will very likely fail in at least some respect.
DS may impose terrible burdens on an individual and his parents.
DS may not impose terrible burdens on an individual and his parents.
I would not have a DS baby if I could avoid it.
I'm all for a woman VP but having a newborn at the time is pushing it.
Having a DS newborn and running for VP is creepy.
All the praise for Palin having the baby is creepy. |
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 22:25:54 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
To shekfu:
I would also add:
A woman who chooses to abort a DS fetus can be making an totally moral choice.
It is moral to make this choice based on one's own happiness.
Some corollaries include:
The 90% of women with DS fetuses who abort should not be condemned as immoral.
The 90% of women with DS fetuses who abort should not be condemned as "murderers".
The 90% of women with DS fetuses who abort should not be condemned for practicing "eugenics".
The 90% of women with DS fetuses who abort should not bear any unearned guilt for their choice. |
|
| Friday, September 19, 2008 at 10:49:35 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Per-Olof Samuelsson
E-mail: per-olof.samuelsson(at)swipnet.se
URL: http://www.nattvakt.com
I agree with "z" here. The criticisms levelled at Provenzo are not against anything he actually wrote, but against implications that have been read into his text without any real foundation.
First of all, if Sandra Palin want to give birth to a child with Down's syndrome, that is her right.
Second of all, if she makes this choice, she has a moral obligation to take very good care of the child and make its life as worthwhile as possible. This is hard enough with any child and, I would imgaine, even harder with a DS child. And if the parents don't fulfill this obligation, the burden is indeed shifted to others (to the taxpayers) - which is what Provenzo pointed out.
Consider also that Sandra Palin is running for vice president, and may be running for president later, if she is successful. How much time will she have for caring for her child? (I have never been president, and I have never had to care for someone with Down's syndrome - but I do imagine both roles might be very time consuming!)
By the way, I was shocked by the hostility (not to say pure evil) of the comments Provenzo received. I know anti-abortionists are a bad lot. But I was shocked all the same. |
|
| Friday, September 19, 2008 at 10:50:42 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Per-Olof Samuelsson
E-mail: per-olof.samuelsson(at)swipnet.se
URL: http://www.nattvakt.com
Correction: "wants", not "want". |
|
| Friday, September 19, 2008 at 12:04:05 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Per-Olof Samuelsson
E-mail: per-olof.samuelsson(at)swipnet.se
URL: http://www.nattvakt.com
Correction again: of course her name is Sarah, not Sandra! |
|
| Saturday, September 20, 2008 at 15:23:13 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Santi
E-mail: santichiva(at)yahoo.es
URL: http://opinionciudadano.blogspot.com/
On the topic of abortion, even many people who defend the possibility of legal abortions, they say they are not pro-abortion, but they don’t want to punish women who are in this difficult situation. In Germany a curious thing has happened. Something that reflects that legal abortion affects adversely to the country. And also that the change is possible: you can promote a culture of life with the support of the citizens, when really there is a real wish of avoid abortions. Since the liberalization of abortion in this country, the number of abortions is officially four million. For that reason, among others, children are seen as an unintended effect of having sex. Many people thought it was necessary to promote greater social acceptance of children in an aging society. And civil society acted, without waiting for action by the State to promote births. They joined several media organizations in a campaign. Interestingly, after the campaign, the birth rate has risen in Germany. The video is exciting. Look here: http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=SztG8JpxvHY You can see 2 boys with this Syndrome in the video...
Santiago Chiva (Granada, Spain) |
|
| Sunday, September 21, 2008 at 11:46:26 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: TheWrightSideUSA
E-mail: TheWrightSideUSA(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.thewrightsideusa.com
First, I'm a pro-lifer. I will disclaim that right now. As such, my question is not meant to patronize or condemn you. Does your stance mean you regret having your daughter? Would your life have been better without her? Are all of your memories of her bad ones. If you answer yes to these questions although I will be taken aback I will better understand your point. Either way, God bless you. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
