 |
| Comments on "The Worship of Retardation" |
|
 | Sunday, September 14, 2008 at 23:49:14 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
"The people who worship retardation reject human reason as a value. They're as anti-man as the deep ecologists who regard mankind as a cancer on the earth. Frankly, one wonders why such people don't lobotomize themselves, if retardation is such a boon to their fellow man."
I had the exact reaction to a spate of Hollywood movies (such as 'Regarding Henry') which put forth the same literally brain-damaged philosophy.
|
| Monday, September 15, 2008 at 1:47:27 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Penny Green
E-mail: ganggreen(at)onetel.com
I think your comments are pretty insensitive.
People don't "worship retardation", in fact many of us strongly dislike that terminology anyway, what we do is recognise that everyone has a value in life even those with a learning disability.
If you "wholeheartedly support the vast majority of women who choose to abort a Down's Syndrome fetus", do you also support those who have the view that all life is precious and should be valued as such? And what about those who don't have the choice because their babys aren't diagnosed in utero?
And do you realise that now that society is more accepting and supportive of people with learning disabilities that "rather than saddle themselves with a perpetually dependent child" does not have to be the scenario as many individuals are living independently. You say that "I regard his life as inherently tragic and likely quite miserable" about the young man you worked with at the movie theatre, did you ask him how he felt about his life? Perhaps some people would regard your life in the same way for the views you have.
It's all about informed individual choice and anyone who has ever been in a large children's hospital will agree that there are sadly children born who have things wrong with them that are a lot worse than Down's Syndrome. Should we put a programme of eugenics in place to get rid of them all? And should we include adults who develop degenerative conditions such as Stephan Hawking, those involved in accidents that are left with impaired function like Christopher Reeve, oh and maybe people with dyslexia like Albert Einstein?
Wow,it would help with the population increase and wouldn't it be great if we were all perfect!!! Always provided of course that a) we know what perfect is and b) we fit into that criteria!
|
| Monday, September 15, 2008 at 5:17:33 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Bill Brown
URL: http://bbrown.info
I have to wonder if this is a cause Objectivists should be fighting for. Sure, abortion would prevent Down's Syndrome but this sort of position lends itself perfectly for caricature. People don't like eugenics and people don't like Social Darwinism. If you're trying to effect cultural change, I'd suspect that you wouldn't want to give the appearance of either of those positions. And sites like this http://enddownsyndrome.blogspot.com/ wouldn't resonate with anyone outside of Objectivism (maybe not even with Objectivists either, it sure turned me off).
The fact is, there are a lot of people in this world who are afflicted with Down's Syndrome and whose parents are not zealots morally elevating special needs. The parents are not sacrificing anything to support their children: they are taking the responsibility that they themselves earned. It's unfortunate to be saddled with that, but that's the way it goes.
|
| Monday, September 15, 2008 at 5:43:08 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Wendy
I sure see your points here, as I have similar feelings regarding people who exclusively adopt children with disabilities, and sometimes the worse the disability, the more desirable they are to the adopters. Why deliberately saddle yourself with a seriously disabled child? The only reason I can imagine is that these people want their chance at sainthood by making such an obvious sacrifice. I think that is what is actually being worshipped--the people who choose to sacrifice themselves.
However, while I would not personally choose to have a child I knew had Down's Syndrome, there are many well-functioning people with Down's Syndrome out there and I would not presume to know whether they are miserable.
|
| Monday, September 15, 2008 at 6:07:06 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Richard
E-mail: rbramwell(at)sympatico.ca
Re #2:
Down's Syndrome researchers and psychologists have discovered the the LESS severe the Syndrome the more *UNhappy* the person will be. This is because those who are less afflicted are able to understand their differences, disadvantages, and misfortune. Of course, those more severely afflicted are NOT going to live a life as anything more than an dependent parasite on the irrational 'good will' of misguided altruist parents proving their 'goodness' by sacrificing themselves to a hopeless case. The greater the need the more 'good' the altruists believe themselves to be. That IS the "worship [of] retardation".
Re #3:
The elimination of a Down's afflicted fetus is not really eugenics Eugenics is a *societal view* holding that offspring should be selected genetically to ensure a more ideal *race*. Here we are speaking of individual parents choosing how their lives will be affected by a child --whom they will be responsible for raising when it comes to term. Trisomy 21 (Down's) fetuses are, effectively, deformed humans, care of which will severely curtail the lives of the parents. This is precisely the same reason why any unwanted pregnancy can and should be terminated. No other person has the right to prevent that termination if it is the choice of the mother.
As for creating a better race, every parent combination will have a different view of what that should be, which again does not really fit with the usual understanding of the term "eugenics".
|
| Monday, September 15, 2008 at 6:13:23 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Rob Abiera
URL: http://moralitywar.blogspot.com
RE: "one wonders why such people don't lobotomize themselves". Diana, if a Christian lobotomized himself, how could he continue to sacrifice his intelligence?
In addition to rejecting reason, having another person to be dependent on you all his life allows a Christian to sacrifice his own life - or, in a case like this, two people, since both parents would be sacricing their lives to a life-long dependent.
|
| Monday, September 15, 2008 at 7:22:54 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Bill Brown
URL: http://bbrown.info/
Richard, thanks but I am completely aware of what eugenics is. That is why I said "the appearance of either" when referring to both Social Darwinism and eugenics. I linked eugenics with SD because the latter is a frequent (and gross) mischaracterization of Objectivism--I would hate for the movement to be similarly linked to the former. If you don't think that our detractors would seize on this, you're naive. Personally, I don't really care because *I* understand what Diana and The Aesthetic Capitalist are saying and agree with it. But if we're interested in being activists for the cause of Objectivism, there are much better issues to tackle than the disparagement of mental retardation.
|
| Monday, September 15, 2008 at 8:22:05 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
First: Somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of women who discover that their fetus has Down's Syndrome choose to abort. So I'm not worried about offending people. Most people, when faced with a lifetime burden, do choose well. And yes, I do think that abortion is the right choice in those cases, although I certainly respect the right of people to choose otherwise.
Second: Upholding and supporting the RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to decide whether to bring a mentally or physically defective fetus to term is NOT eugenics or social darwinism by any stretch of the (rational) imagination. If I have to never say anything that might be construed as something wrong by someone else, then I'd better just never say anything again.
|
| Monday, September 15, 2008 at 9:55:33 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Bill Brown
URL: http://bbrown.info/
Was I suggesting that you NEVER say ANYTHING that MIGHT be construed WRONGLY? I wasn't. You can say whatever you want, any way you want. I'm just saying that it might not be the most sympathetic position if you are interested in cultural activism. Maybe you could say that it is, in fact, the best position instead of trying to shut me down by asserting your freedom to say whatever you want, a point that I explicitly do not contest.
|
| Monday, September 15, 2008 at 10:07:40 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Thomas Shoebotham
E-mail: tbshoe1927(at)yahoo.com
Please also keep in mind the main message of the NR article Diana is criticizing. The writer does not simply call for acceptance of the retarded, she all but deifies them, calling them "ambassadors of God", whose presence can "elevate all of us." This, I maintain, is evil, an attack on reason and other important human values, as Diana pointed out in her comments.
|
| Monday, September 15, 2008 at 10:10:45 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Bill, my response wasn't about freedom of speech at all, as you'll see if you re-read it.
Instead, my point was that your objection to discussing this topic would apply to any form of activism. Some people think that egoism is horrific, that it would entail slaughtering and raping. That's no reason to shy away from advocating egoism, but it is a reason to be clear about what egoism means.
The fact is that the morality of aborting mentally and physically defective fetuses is important -- particularly in the fight against the religious right. Why? Because the religious right actively promotes the view that a lifetime of sacrifice by parents for a retarded child is noble. That's a grotesque form of altruism: parenting should be about helping a child become a rational, independent adult. If that's not possible, it's a tragedy, not some kind of benefit or value to parent or child. Moreover, the religious right actively seeks to force such sacrifice on people by banning all abortion. That's morally monstrous.
|
| Monday, September 15, 2008 at 10:37:06 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Bill Brown
URL: http://bbrown.info/
As I said, I have no problem with the ideas behind it. I would even be fine with the approach Diana just outlined, but I think the disparagement of the mentally retarded is ill-advised. It's not their fault and they can be productive people within their abilities. They are entirely incidental to the matter: for me, the issue is that the reasons behind an abortion are ENTIRELY irrelevant to the right of a woman to have one. The religious right, I think, seeks to elevate intention as a way to demonize abortion.
|
| Monday, September 15, 2008 at 11:58:20 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: canuck49
E-mail: canuck49(at)telus.net
Please look up the story of Johnny Stallings. He is the late son of legendary Alabama coach Gene Stallings.(Google the name)
This story does not prove or dis-prove anything except that you never know how someone's life will turn out.
|
| Monday, September 15, 2008 at 12:24:02 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Michael Labeit
E-mail: logician169(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://themethodoflogic.blogspot.com/
The consistent religious, I believe, feel compelled to exalt all that exists, including mental retardation, because it is assumed that all is divinely planned and that to be critical of a product of God's crummy handiwork is sinful.
|
| Monday, September 15, 2008 at 12:33:56 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Sajid
>I think the disparagement of the mentally retarded is ill-advised. It's not their fault and they can be >productive people within their abilities.
I don't think the mentally retarded are what is being disparaged here. Just the idea that it is morally wrong to raise a child because he needs you rather than raise a child because you can be proud of him or form a connection with him/her etc. etc.
On a side note I think it can be argued that the development and the finding of happiness of a mentally retarded child is still personally fulfilling to a parent once the parent has understood the child and is perhaps a testament to the advancement of our society that we are able to form meaningful relationships with the mentally retarded. But these relationships are not for everyone, especially if you are impatient and expect a lot from your children. In fact on a more general level parents don't always get the children they want and that's why being a parent is not that easy. Aborting a Down's syndrome kid is just the first step toward being able to design your child so that raising him/her is more satisfying for you. Let's face it, if you could make your child hyper intelligent or really good looking (or both) etc. etc. you certainly would be interested. I am not completely in favor of genetic manipulation because corrupt individiuals may have a corrupt selection for genetics in their offspring which is why I think topics like these are really interesting and worthy of discussion. As of now if I had a kid with Down's syndrome I would most certainly encourage my partner to abort.
>They are entirely incidental to the matter: for me, the issue is that the reasons behind an abortion are >ENTIRELY irrelevant to the right of a woman to have one
Sorry but I disagree even though you may be correct in a strict logical sense. Aborting on a whim, (which I think woman should have a right to do) can be taken to be having disrespect for human life and is a much worse way to affect cultural change than picking an issue in which abortion provides significant benefit to a woman's life (rape, teenage pregnancy, down's syndrome etc.). On a more general level, for any issue that one stands up for while trying to affect cultural change, if the reasons behind standing up for it were not important than why stand up for it in the first place? And how do you convince others to stand up for it?
|
| Monday, September 15, 2008 at 12:46:02 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
The reason for having an abortion is not wholly irrelevant. Let me put it this way: I believe in abortion on demand, that is, the absolute right of a woman to have her pregnancy terminated by a willing doctor at her own expense. (Government-funded abortion raises more complex issues that I don't want to try to resolve just now.) But if someone is troubled by third-trimester abortion, or by a woman who uses abortion as a substitute for contraception rather than a backup for it, and wants to impose legal restrictions in those cases, I think they're wrong, but I don't find their positions monstrous. If someone wants to forbid abortion when the mother's life is in danger, or when the pregnancy is the product of rape, or when the child will be severely genetically or developmentally defective, I do find that monstrous: it's imposing a huge burden of risk, suffering, and/or expense, which any decent person would want to spare the woman.
|
| Monday, September 15, 2008 at 13:37:01 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Bill Brown
URL: http://bbrown.info/
From an individual rights standpoint (which is, I believe, the only perspective that matters when we're discussing the right to an abortion), the rationale for an abortion is entirely irrelevant. I don't care if the pregnant woman doesn't want to get fat, is promiscuous, was on the fence about having the kid for 8 months, or completely forgot she was pregnant--she still has the right to abort. That said, I think each of the reasons I just gave are sufficient to condemn the woman morally and find her despicable.
I'm not saying that there's no reason to stand up for the right to an abortion. I am for that right because I believe that the state should not be able to tell me what I can do with my body. Abortion seems like a beachhead for further invasions and infringement. But saying that the motivation for an abortion is important concedes the point to the anti-abortionists: that some abortions should be restricted because the fetus is a human being and the rationale is insufficient to warrant a pass.
I am saying that defending abortion as a means of eliminating Down's Syndrome and saving people from a miserable, degrading life of either a) being so afflicted or b) caring for someone with the disease is probably not the best tone to strike. There's plenty of other ways to characterize or frame the discussion such that you're not calling the retarded "miserable" or "worthless" or "degraded." Maybe it's just me, but I feel more compassion than contempt for those with Down's Syndrome.
|
| Monday, September 15, 2008 at 13:48:25 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Bill, I feel no contempt for people with Down's Syndrome. That would be bizarre: their circumstances are not of their own making. I do feel pity for them, however, because their existence is not a fully human one.
I also strongly disagree with you about the relevance of the morality of abortion.
Speaking generally, I'm not a libertarian, nor just concerned with political activism. So I'm just concerned to argue for rational egoism as I am to argue for rights.
More particularly, if a person can be convinced that abortion is not merely a person's right, but also a perfectly moral choice, then that person will be far, far less likely to ever support any restrictions on abortion. Why? Because in doing so, he recognizes that he would be preventing a person from doing something moral. People don't full understand rights, and so that true thought helps guide their political thoughts and actions in the right direction.
|
| Monday, September 15, 2008 at 18:59:18 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Adam Reed
E-mail: adamreedatalumdotmitdotedu
URL: http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/areed2
Diana: "Frankly, one wonders why such people don't lobotomize themselves, if retardation is such a boon to their fellow man."
There used to be a Christian sect in Russia, the Skoptsyi, who castrated themselves. Their numbers eventually kind of petered out, even after they modified their doctrine to only mandate castration after the believer had helped bring some little believers into the world. So maybe some mega-church minister will take up the idea of lobotomy as a sacrament. But only after the believer has earned and donated enough money to the church to keep the minister solvent...
|
| Monday, September 15, 2008 at 22:20:51 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Richard Watts
E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net
Penny Green:
"People don't 'worship retardation', in fact many of us strongly dislike that terminology anyway, what we do is recognise that everyone has a value in life even those with a learning disability."
Some people do "worship retardation". Anyone who holds retardation as an ideal, who thinks retardation itself is a value (thinks of it as something to be preferred over full, thriving human functioning) worships retardation.
No one is advocating eugenics here -- I'm curious to hear your definition of eugenics. A woman has the moral right to abort any fetus, based on her own judgement as to what is best for her own life and happiness, whether the fetus is healthy or otherwise. Even a perfectly healthy fetus is not automatically a value to its potential mother. But there is something *wrong* with someone who chooses to give birth to a fetus with Downs Syndrome, when she could choose instead to abort the fetus and then simply try again for a healthy child (if she wants a child). Someone who knowingly chooses to give birth to a fetus with Downs Syndrome is choosing a baby with Downs Syndrome instead of choosing to have a healthy child. That's *sick*. Palin and the religious right seek to impose this insanity on everyone.
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 7:33:39 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Nicholas Provenzo
E-mail: nprovenzo(at)capitalismcenter.org
URL: http://www.capitalismcenter.org
Great post, Diana . . . and I'd just like to SAY that the TENDENCY of SOME to use ALL CAPS in their COMMENTS would have made for a GOOD EPISODE of SEINFELD if that TV SHOW were still on the AIR.
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 7:53:38 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
I'm not persuaded by Richard's specific argument about choosing to give birth to and raise, say, a child with trisomy 21.
Compare a different sort of genetic "defect." It used to be the case, in India, that many women from higher castes, who could afford medical care, were going in for amniocentesis, and if the child they were carrying was female, were having abortions. This was so widespread that there was concern about a shortage of women in the next generation, which led to India legally restricting these medical procedures. Which has not really been effective, because well off Indian women can fly to the United Kingdom, which has no such rules.
Now, it's very unlikely, though not impossible, that an American woman would terminate a pregnancy simply because she was carrying a girl rather than a boy. But that is not because she worships girls, or values girls over boys; it's because she values having a child, and what sex that child is doesn't enter into it. And the same might be said of parents who choose to complete pregnancies that will result in children with genetic or developmental problems: they value having a child, and that child's genetic makeup does not enter into it. It's not that they are specifically seeking to have a defective child; it's that they are taking what they get. That's not a choice I'm in favor of, either, but it's a different kind of mistake than what Richard describes. It derives from a different philosophical assumption.
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 8:22:59 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: Sergio Oliveira Jr.
E-mail: sergio.oliveira.jr(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.mentaframework.org
Hi Diana,
I have read Atlas Shrugged and have read a great deal of comments (good and bad) about objectivism. I like Ayn Rand's philosophy very much.
But please allow me to say that you may be mistaken or at least not considering all the pieces of this puzzle.
I would like to talk about "Moral Responsibility" which is a *value*. If you want to have a child you *must* be aware of the risks and the costs involved in this task.
I really don't think that having a child, *any child*, genius or retarded, is a self-sacrifice, UNLESS you don't have the money to afford it.
So, if *you* decided to have a child and you knew that Down Syndrome exists, then you cannot complain later on if misfortune hits you. But since you *took* the risk now you are moral obligated to take care and support your child.
Let's say that you had a healthy child that later on became a rapist or a murder. This is a *moral* choice he made and he deserves to go to jail. Some people (like me) will also say that he deserves to die.
But if you have a child that later on develops any kind of mental illness, this is *not* a moral choice. He does *not* deserve to die or to be thrown away in a jail cell of indifference.
So if you are a true objectivist, that always put your self interest first, you will *not* have a baby unless you:
1) Have money to afford, raise and take care of this baby that did not ask to come to earth.
2) Know the risks (Down Syndrome and other misfortunes) and are willing to take them.
I financially *poor* objectivist should *never* have a baby. Poor people that have babies are very far from being objectivist. This is a contradiction.
It is not a worship of retardation, but a worship of *responsibility*. A moral one.
So I do not agree with abortion. It is too easy and too irresponsible to just say: "I had bad luck creating this life, so let me kill it and try again."
If the laws allowed it, would you kill your son if he later in life developed a mental illness? I bet you would not. So why kill him when he is a fetus?
If people want to have babies, they MUST understand what kind of game they are playing. If they have money, they can always hire a nanny. If they have parents nearby they can "hire" their parents. If misfortune hits (it can happen to anybody) they will hire special professionals to take care of them. In either case they must care and try to love (i know Ayn Rand's definition of love!) their baby the best they can.
I would *never* have a baby if I did not have enough money. This would be too much self-sacrifice for me. But I would NEVER kill *my* baby either, no matter what. This is MORAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Do you agree?
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 9:08:42 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
Sergio's error is ascribing the same identity (as a human being) and value to an fetus or embryo, as to a baby. In point of fact, he even calls it a baby in his last paragraph.
(Whoops, that *thud* was the sound of an entire long argument collapsing....)
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 9:16:11 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: h-man
E-mail: h_blend(at)hotmail.com
Sergio save your breath.
What I can't figure out is why would an objectivist ever have a child? Varying degrees of sacrifice are called for with all the little ones and none ever come close to perfection, physical or otherwise and they rarely provide the monetary return to justify the investment.
Diana and other objectivist reject that the "potential" of a fetus is of any "value" worthy of protection by society and thus can be discarded right up to the moment of final exit. (presumably if the little critter can be pushed back in quick enough you can kill him)
Eugenics is precisely what is occuring when one decides that a "potential" Down Syndrome child is not worthy of living.
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 9:35:34 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: Sergio Oliveira Jr.
E-mail: sergio.oliveira.jr(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.mentaframework.org
quote: "Sergio's error is ascribing the same identity (as a human being) and value to an fetus or embryo, as to a baby. In point of fact, he even calls it a baby in his last paragraph."
I agree that a fully born person has more value than a fetus, but we must draw a line somewhere, right?
Are you sure a 4-month fetus has no value? Have you seen one?
But you guys did *not* answer my question at all. The question was: Do you understand and agree with *moral responsibility* ?
I am in favor of abortion of an anencephalic baby. No brain = No file. At least a human life.
I am in favor of abortion in rape cases. You were forced to become pregnant.
I am in favor of the day-after pill, although I think that people that uses it more than once are being very irresponsible.
But I am *not* in favor of somebody with free will having a baby and then deciding that it did not go good so I will kill it.
Maybe the whole problem in this discussion is when we have LIFE? Where is the line that separates life from something else.
I am flexible enough to say that before 30 days we don't have much in there. I am not aware in what period the brain and the central nervous system start to form, but I believe that anything after 90 days is not good at all.
If we consider LIFE = BEING WITH RATIONAL BRAIN then babies with less than 2 years are not LIFE and we can kill them as well. And worse than that, we can kill a bunch of adults, too.
My point is we must draw a moral line somewhere with regards to LIFE and we must understand and accept moral responsibility. Do you agree?
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 9:39:43 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Sergio --
For my view of moral responsibility, sex, and abortion, see the later sections of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person" at:
http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf
Abortion is not irresponsible -- usually quite the opposite. And the proper moral and legal line -- where a fetus becomes a person with rights -- is birth.
I don't have time to respond to the rest of your comments, but I completely disagree with most of them.
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 9:50:43 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: Sergio Oliveira Jr.
E-mail: sergio.oliveira.jr(at)gmail.com
quote: "What I can't figure out is why would an objectivist ever have a child? Varying degrees of sacrifice are called for with all the little ones and none ever come close to perfection, physical or otherwise and they rarely provide the monetary return to justify the investment."
That's an good question. The majority of people have babies without having a clue what they are doing. They are not objectivists ("Who is John Galt?") and they think that's the natural course of life. That's part of the human nature and instinct. They did not discover yet that we are not animals, we *think*. Not even talking about god/religion here...
Babies are very expensive and demand a lot of attention (from you or from someone else). It is not the amount of time you spend with them, but the quality of this time. But someone has to be there watching them all the time, so you better have money to pay for school or nanny if you don't want to be there all the time, cause I understand that you have a life to live.
But some people will like to have babies, because they can afford to have babies and because they like to see their genes moving forward, because they want company later on, etc. I agree it is not easy to come up with rational reasons for that decision, but we have to respect because if you have moral responsibility this is not a moral choice, this is just taste, like you prefer strawberry and not banana.
But we have to be moral responsible and stand up for our actions. I know that sex is good, accidents happens, but this is not an excuse, at least not for an objectivist I would think. We hate determinism, right? (I do!)
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 10:03:18 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: Sergio Oliveira Jr.
E-mail: sergio.oliveira.jr(at)gmail.com
quote: "Abortion is not irresponsible -- usually quite the opposite. And the proper moral and legal line -- where a fetus becomes a person with rights -- is birth"
If we use *reason* here, this wonderful gift that we are proud to have, we may be able to conclude that this law is unjust.
Fact 1: Baby is born on the 22nd of April. He is life from now on.
Fact 2: This same baby on day 21st of April is not considered life.
Is this law or this assumption really just? Is it a moral?
I am not the final answer, people will have different opinions on this, but I have my opinion which is: Life is formed after brain and central nervous system is formed. After that it is not good to kill the fetus, not even considering the fetus pain involved because we can probably come with a technology to suppress that...
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 10:29:26 mst
Comment ID: #30
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Sergio -- I've written on this issue in detail in the paper I already mentioned. Please read the relevant sections. It's not reasonable to expect me (or anyone else) to spend my valuable time answering your half-baked questions until you've shown some evidence of doing so. If you're unwilling to do that, please drop the topic entirely.
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 10:50:48 mst
Comment ID: #31
Name: Sergio Oliveira Jr.
E-mail: sergio.oliveira.jr(at)gmail.com
Diana - Your document has 19 pages, but I did a search for the world "life" and did not find any definition of what characterizes life for a human being.
My question is very simple and can be answered quickly by rational human being:
Fact 1: Baby is born on the 22nd of April. He is life from now on.
Fact 2: This same baby on day 21st of April is not considered life.
Is this law or assumption (life begins after birth) just? Is it moral to kill the above baby on the 21st of April but not on the 22nd after he is born?
Of course I am excluding here: life of mother in danger, anencephalic fetus, rape, etc. That would clearly be gross self-sacrifice.
I am in favor of day-after pill as well, as I said before. I just don't think the line at birth is just for the fetus. Maybe 75 days after conception? I am not a doctor...
quote: "It's not reasonable to expect me (or anyone else) to spend my valuable time answering your half-baked questions until you've shown some evidence of doing so. If you're unwilling to do that, please drop the topic entirely."
My question is plan simple and can be answered with reasoning, but if you want I can drop the argument and leave. I totally respect you and your work. But this will not mean I am accepting or tolerating this idea. (See Peikoff x Kelly debate on tolerance)
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 10:58:08 mst
Comment ID: #32
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Sergio:
It appears that you are making two different arguments here.
One is an argument based on the idea that a fetus is a human being, and has a human right to life. But it appears that you yourself do not really believe this. You make an exception for a woman who has been raped, and whose pregnancy results from the rape. But in this case, the fetus is not guilty of rape; it can't be, because it didn't even exist when the rape took place. So you are calling for putting an innocent person to death for someone else's crime. On your own premise, that would have to be considered a monstrous injustice. So check your premises, as Ayn Rand liked to say.
The other is an argument based on assumption of risk. By most accounts, a woman who is raped has not voluntarily engaged in sexual activity and has not assumed the risk of pregnancy. Conversely, you seem to be saying, if a woman has voluntarily engaged in sexual activity, she has assumed the risk of pregnancy. But what if the couple have used contraception conscientiously, and it has failed? Barrier methods, the pill, vasectomy, even tubal ligation all have failure rates. Are you demanding infallibility, and saying that if you do anything with any trace of risk, too bad for you? Because that's not a standard suited to the real world. On the other hand, if you don't demand infallibility, then a conscientious effort to avoid unwanted pregnancy surely must count as not assuming the risk of pregnancy. We don't hold people legally accountable for accidents that happened without negligence on their part, at least not as a general rule.
And even then, questions of assumption of risk arise only in legal actions between two people. If I have behaved in a risky way, deliberately or negligently, I can acquire a legal obligation to another person as a result. But this requires that there be another person involved. We have already seen that you don't believe that a fetus is another person, not really, because of your position on abortion after rape. But you are trying to treat it as if it were another person in the sense of being owed something under an "assumption of risk" argument. You can't have it both ways; that's a contradictory position. Again, check your premises.
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 10:59:58 mst
Comment ID: #33
Name: Greg Perkins
E-mail: greg(at)ecosmos.com
URL: http://ecosmos.com
Sergio, this doesn't regard the existence and recognition of biological life, but rather of *personhood*.
If you are sincere about wanting to understand the issue, I would suggest reading those sections of Diana and Ari's paper. Even if you don't fully understand or agree, it will at least allow you to frame your questions and concerns well enough to allow for a productive discussion.
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 11:07:26 mst
Comment ID: #34
Name: Sajid
To Sergio:
Here is a previous thread on Diana's website that goes over many issues you would like to discuss.
http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/05/personhood-advocates-are-goi ...
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 11:17:20 mst
Comment ID: #35
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Sergio said: "Your document has 19 pages, but I did a search for the world "life" and did not find any definition of what characterizes life for a human being."
That's because the beginning of life isn't the relevant issue -- as the paper argues. The relevant sections are "Personhood and the Right to Abortion" and "Morality and Abortion" -- pages 10 to 14. They explain (1) why birth is the relevant dividing line for personhood and rights and (2) why abortion is a responsible and moral choice, even when a couple failed to use birth control.
I also hope that you seriously consider William Stoddard's recent comment (#32). Your view is incoherent -- and you are demanding major sacrifices of people (either total abstinence or the burden of raising unwanted children) that are grossly inconsistent with the Objectivist ethics.
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 11:54:12 mst
Comment ID: #36
Name: Sergio Oliveira Jr.
E-mail: sergio.oliveira.jr(at)gmail.com
Thanks for the response, William. Good arguments.
quote: "One is an argument based on the idea that a fetus is a human being, and has a human right to life. But it appears that you yourself do not really believe this. You make an exception for a woman who has been raped, and whose pregnancy results from the rape. But in this case, the fetus is not guilty of rape; it can't be, because it didn't even exist when the rape took place. So you are calling for putting an innocent person to death for someone else's crime. On your own premise, that would have to be considered a monstrous injustice."
I can never be forced to do or engage in anything against my will. This is rule number one, right? If a woman was raped, she can access her free will to decide if she wants to have the baby. The answer will probably (and rightly) be NO. So she can use the day after pill or any other abortion method to get rid of this terrible injustice (crime!) she suffered!
I never said that life begins at conception. That's non-sense. But life begins at birth is kind of non-sense as well. So it is *not* injust or imoral to abort a fetus in its early stage (day-after pill or something else). It is the woman's body, and it is her decision, much more when we had an injustice and monstrous crime like rape.
quote: "The other is an argument based on assumption of risk. By most accounts, a woman who is raped has not voluntarily engaged in sexual activity and has not assumed the risk of pregnancy. Conversely, you seem to be saying, if a woman has voluntarily engaged in sexual activity, she has assumed the risk of pregnancy. But what if the couple have used contraception conscientiously, and it has failed? Barrier methods, the pill, vasectomy, even tubal ligation all have failure rates. Are you demanding infallibility, and saying that if you do anything with any trace of risk, too bad for you? Because that's not a standard suited to the real world. On the other hand, if you don't demand infallibility, then a conscientious effort to avoid unwanted pregnancy surely must count as not assuming the risk of pregnancy. We don't hold people legally accountable for accidents that happened without negligence on their part, at least not as a general rule"
This is a very good argument. Thanks! I agree that stuff fails. Even the most responsible person can fail. But contraception methods are very safe nowadays. Of course they are not 100% safe, but if you ask a doctor it will say that pills are 99% safe.
But let me take a guess here and you can correct me if I am wrong: The great majority of abortions are done on pregnancies that either the man or the woman neglected to take the appropriate precautions. Nowadays we have the wonderful day-after pill. This is a marvelous insurance, but you don't crash your car every month because you have insurance, right?
And like you said, which was very nice said, the embryo is not a legal person or even a life yet, so I have no obligations with him. I agree. You are right.
To conclude and clarify: All I was saying is that:
1) I don't think the "life starts at birth" is fair.
2) I never said that we have life at conception. That's non-sense.
3) After some time (guessing after 120 days) it may be imoral to kill a developed fetus, with brain and nervous system. (We need a doctor here to give his opinion on this period)
4) Down Syndrome is a known risk. In what stage of the fetus can we detect that? (We need a doctor again!)
I understand it is an awful hard issue and that no-one in free will or rationally wants to have a SD child, but it all comes down to the morality of killing a 6-month baby/fetus in your self-interest.
The main idea of Objectivism, and the most important I presume, is that values are absolutes. Yes there are absolutes! You just simply don't rob a bank because you were unfortunate to lose your money in the stock market (plus you knew the risk) the same way you don't kill a developed fetus because you were unlucky to have a SD child. The problem here is that this absolute is not easily defined: if you got rid of a bunch of microscopic cells I agree you are not doing anything imoral, but if you get rid of a 6-month developed fetus, then I really have doubts.
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 12:00:14 mst
Comment ID: #37
Name: h-man
E-mail: h_blend(at)hotmail.com
#32
Sergio also suggested that the "potential" life was value even when considered by itself. Thus is that protectable.
The apparent view according to a post several days ago is that it is immoral for society to even deny funds to a medical institution that forces people (thru threat of firing) to aid in abortion (per Paul Hsieh). No the money must keep coming. That would seem to show a contempt for people who think the fetus is something worth valuing in it's own right.
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 12:32:43 mst
Comment ID: #38
Name: h-man
E-mail: h_blend(at)hotmail.com
Diana
I don't think Sergio's views are not half-baked. He is trying to defend the half-baked.
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 14:01:22 mst
Comment ID: #39
Name: Victoria
Nice commentary on this issue Diana. I really enjoyed your original post.
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 15:12:37 mst
Comment ID: #40
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Sergio,
In applying concepts to the real world, we are mostly engaged in dividing up a continuum of cases into discrete, bounded categories, like dividing up the surface of the earth into countries. It's almost always the case that where exactly the boundaries go is optional. There will be borderline examples of the concept that are more similar to borderline examples of closely related concepts than they are to prototypical examples of the concept where they're actually assigned. See for example C. L. Hardin's discussion of colors in Color for Philosophers. Nonetheless, from the fact that we cannot identify a unique wavelength of monochromatic light as the only possible boundary between blue and green, it does not follow that we cannot identify certain wavelengths as unquestionably blue and others as unquestionably green, or that color terms are simply arbitrary.
In some cases, we can just accept that the boundary is blurry. But in others, we need to define a clear line around the concept. And the exact placement of the line will necessarily be somewhat arbitrary. For example, it's clear that it makes sense to define a 25-year-old legally as an adult, and that it makes sense to define a 5-year-old legally as a child, but whether the age limit for adulthood is set at 14, 18, or 21 is optional. This kind of line-drawing is very commonly necessary in law.
You object to drawing the line between personhood and nonpersonhood at birth as arbitrary. But what other point would you consider less arbitrary? The only transition that's equally unequivocal is fertilization, and you reject that. I can't see that any point short of birth stands out as so obviously right that no one could debate it. If you put the line at N days, I could argue with you that N-1 days is just as much a "person" as N days, or that N+1 days is just as much "not a person" as N days, in the same way you did for birth, and it would be just as hard for you to defend that difference being meaningful as you find birth. So the argument for the arbitrariness of distinguishing between the born and the unborn does not persuade me.
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 15:14:40 mst
Comment ID: #41
Name: Sergio Oliveira Jr.
E-mail: sergio.oliveira.jr(a)gmail.com
Why can't we be practical and just draw a line somewhere in the middle of the pregnancy period? Before that day you can do whatever you want, after that day you cannot.
The problem is that after a certain period the fetus is too developed and if you kill it people will always come with nasty pictures and stuff like that which will be hard to justify.
You may not agree with my proposal (to draw a line in the middle) but you should agree with the previous sentence.
Check comment #2 to see that I am not the only one who thinks this is too hash even to objectivists what to say to other people.
And again, all this debate arose because as far as I know, and I may be wrong here, when you do find out that the fetus has Down Syndrome you are way too far in the pregnancy period, so killing this fetus is not something as easy as getting rid of a small organic thing.
If Down Syndrome is a DNA thing, I am sure man can improve the methods for an early diagnosis, so that an abortion can be done earlier and easier.
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 15:27:00 mst
Comment ID: #42
Name: Sergio Oliveira Jr.
E-mail: sergio.oliveira.jr(at)gmail.com
I did not see your response when I placed my last reply #41.
Willian: The line need to be placed somewhere. We can consider size of fetus, size (or proportion to be relative to fetus size) of brain, size (or proportion) of nervous spine, and so on...
I mean, that's just my personal opinion. I think 0.08 for drinking levels is fair one. You could argue that 0.06 your reactions are compromised. I could say that 0.09 is close enough to 0.08 and so on, but people (rational people I hope) have decided that the line will be at 0.08 so we respect that.
But I agree with your arguments. All I have to say is repeat what I said on #41: "The problem is that after a certain period the fetus is too developed and if you kill it people will always come with nasty pictures and stuff like that which will be hard to justify."
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 19:16:25 mst
Comment ID: #43
Name: Amy Nasir
E-mail: amynasir(at)aol.com
URL: http://kindredist.com
I also enjoyed your post, Diana. I think it's not only morally irresponsible, but vicious for a woman to knowingly choose to bring a mentally retarded child into the world, just as it would be nearly equivalent to do the same with a limbless child. Reason is a person's means of survival, achievement and happiness. To gleefully (or self-righteously) look forward to raising a child basically unable or incapable of independent survival, achievement and happiness is cruel and inhuman.
From the time of Augustine, Christians loathed their ability to reason, as it brought a never-ending battle with a lack of faith in their own minds. To see a mentally retarded person is literally, for them, to see a person touched by the hand of god -- incapable of reasoning or questioning too much, thereby incapable of losing faith. As an aside, I suppose that is where the derogatory term "touched" derived from, as in, "You are touched if you believe in supernatural entities."
Neat post, Diana. Thanks.
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 23:05:50 mst
Comment ID: #44
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
So, Sergio, are you saying that -you- find images of aborted late-term fetuses disturbing and think it's right that such abortions should be restricted? Or are you saying that you consider late-term abortions ethically legitimate, but you think that most of the public will never accept them, and therefore think that as a matter of political strategy they should not be defended, to avoid discrediting Objectivism by associating it with an unpopular position?
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 6:01:30 mst
Comment ID: #45
Name: Sergio Oliveira Junior
E-mail: sergio.oliveira.jr(at)gmail.com
All I am saying is: Is it cruel or not cruel to kill late-term fetuses? Is it moral or not moral?
Willian: "Or are you saying that you consider late-term abortions ethically legitimate"
Indians consider killing born twins as legal and moral. They say is a curse from the gods. We agree that killing is an absolute imorality, unless in self-defense. I never said I consider it legitimate. Killing for me and for every rational being is imoral.
But interrupting a pregnancy may not be considered "killing", if in early states. After some period, by common sense, you have to agree it is yes a sort of killing.
So we must push studies for early detection of illness, so we can interrupt and not kill. Again the "draw a line" problem.
Maybe the issue of the article is that Palin mixed this problem with "God", probably just to get more votes. This, as everything else, has nothing to do with God. Has to do with choice and morality.
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 9:22:51 mst
Comment ID: #46
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
It does not appear to me that you've actually offered a reason for saying that "life begins halfway from conception to full term" is a less arbitrary or more rationally valid rule of law than "life begins at birth." You've offered, at best, a sense-of-life reason: "an unborn child one day before full term looks entirely human, and killing it seems emotionally repugnant."
And the trouble with that sort of argument is that the destruction of individual rights always begins with emotionally repugnant cases. For example, censorship starts out with denying freedom of speech and publication to defenders of the Nazi death camps, or to people who write or draw erotic scenes involving small children (if actual small children were used as actors or models, of course, entirely different laws would be violated, and censorship would not be the primary issue). And on a sense-of-life basis, it's hard to say that repugnance isn't the proper response to such material, or to defend the right to produce it other than reluctantly. But in terms of legal philosophy, once you set aside the principle of absolute individual rights in favor of letting those rights be taken away from people most other people find offensive, you open the door to censorship of atheists, or wealthy entrepreneurs, or any other group whom a substantial number of people disapprove of, or, ultimately, of any party or demographic who come in in the minority in the latest election. Or, in this cast, to an endless series of votes over whether six months pregnant is too late for an abortion, or three months, or what test you use to measure how advanced a pregnancy is, or what exact problems with a pregnancy justify a woman's having an abortion. That's not a good journey to make, so it's better not to start.
Birth is a simple, unequivocal place to draw the line; it's obvious when it has occurred, and it has the highest possible psychological salience. No point short of birth is less arbitrary. And abortion is a weighty decision with real costs, that few women will make lightly; it's reasonable to assume that if a woman makes that choice, she has considered the alternatives and found them worse, and not demand that she justify herself to some judge or government official or mandatory ethics counselor. Let the person who pays the price make the choice of what to buy. That's my moral position on this.
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 11:57:32 mst
Comment ID: #47
Name: Sajid
>>Birth is a simple, unequivocal place to draw the line; it's obvious when it has occurred, and it has the >>highest possible psychological salience. No point short of birth is less arbitrary
There also exist good physiological reasons for picking birth to be the boundary. Prior to birth the baby is completely dependent on the mother and is not even capable of breathing but takes nutrients and energy directly from the amniotic fluid. Right after birth the baby opens its eyes and takes its first breath.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#Postnatal_development (link explains in more detail what happens)
Note that after a baby is born we have no conflicts such as what if the delivery of the baby will cost the mom her life etc. The two are physically entirely independent now. A healthy new born could be whisked off from America to China the very same day and be raised just fine.
You may argue that this still isn't completely exact since if you did a C-section a couple of days before the baby is carried to term, the chances that the baby would live normally is still really high. However, the same logic applies. If the fetus is part of the mother it cannot be considered an independent human being. It has the potential to be an independent human being once it starts breathing on its own.
Note also that the rule as it is formulated is a technicality in many ways. As the following link shows, only 12% of abortions happen after 3 months and only 1.5 % after 5 months.
http://usliberals.about.com/od/healthcare/i/PBAbortion_2.htm
Basically any person who is not taking the utmost care of her fetus during its gestation and planning for its life after birth is not in the morally correct frame of mind if she wishes to deliver. An abortion decision should and usually is made early. The fact that its sometimes medically or logistically necessary to have an abortion later seems to be sufficient reason to fight for it being legal.
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 12:02:00 mst
Comment ID: #48
Name: becklinn77
E-mail: becklinn77(at)gmail.com
I am absolutely appalled by what I have just read.
No - we as Christians do not worship retardation or disparage human intelligence. That's the craziest statement I've ever heard.
As a Christian mother, I took care of myself during my pregnancies, making sure that I got enough of all the nutrients that my babies needed to grow strong and healthy, making sure that I got just enough but not too much exercise, paying attention to every piece of advice my OBGYN offered. Thankfully my children were born perfectly normal with no deficiencies or malformations. As a Christian mother, I read with my chilidren every night because their grandmother (a teacher) said it would make them smarter. I talk about current events with my children because I want them to have a better understanding of their world and be less sheltered than I was. I help them with their homework and listen to their spelling words until I sometimes want to SCREAM... But I do it because these small sacrifices are worth the knowledge that I am raising bright, independent individuals who will be a benefit to their world. But not everyone is so fortunate...
My husband (we married 3 months ago, but have known each other for 4 years) is the father of a 21 year old daughter with severe cerebral palsy. Heather cannot walk or talk. She cannot roll over or sit up. She cannot swallow more than a few drops at a time, and all her nourishment and liquid needs must be delivered through a feeding tube. She will always be in diapers, and her every need will be provided by her parents (and me) for as long as she lives. Her disabilities were not discovered until she was about 3 months old. According to #18, she is not fully human. Should we therefore stop caring for her and let her die, since her existence can't possibly have any worth? If her parents had discovered her disabilities before her birth, should they have ended her life?
NO!!
Because the things that Heather CAN do are so much more valuable than the things that she can't. Heather can light up a room with a smile. She can enjoy her life and she does!! I have never seen anyone come in contact with Heather's infectous joy and not come away with a smile. She can reach out for my hand and cry with me when she sees me sad and laugh when something strikes her as funny. She can and does benefit everyone who knows her. Not because we somehow feel superior for "sacrificing" to love an unlovable child. But because she brings her joy and her beautiful spirit to everyone who has the gift of loving her. I love the way my son - who is 8 - talks about Heather. He is a typical "selfish", "the world revolves around me" 8 year old - so don't tell me that he gets an ego boost by loving someone unlovable. He says "Heather is my BEST big sister" while he hugs her neck. If you ask him why, he says "Because she always loves me and she's always happy to see me. She makes me smile!".
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 14:04:42 mst
Comment ID: #49
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
"If her parents had discovered her disabilities before her birth, should they have ended her life? NO!!"
Lets look at this claim, shall we? Before the fetus has the chance to develop and be born, the parents discover that it is *severely* damaged. If allowed to come to term, the resulting human being will be trapped in a torture chamber of a human body and suffer mental damage equivalent to a sledge hammer being taken to the brain.
So - BEFORE all this happens, the parents have a choice: they can PREVENT this pain and suffering from ever occurring and instead try to create to a HEALTHY fetus -OR- they can choose to PURPOSEFULLY inflict such life long pain and suffering by carrying the fetus to term.
Isn't it interesting that the religion of 'love' demands that parents choose the sadistic option of purposefully inflicting unending pain, suffering, and severe disability rather than mercifully preventing it from ever occurring.
That says all that need be said.
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 15:06:06 mst
Comment ID: #50
Name: Wendy
NewsBusters just printed a commentary of Nicholas Provenzo's discussion of this issue, which clearly shows that they did not actually read his post. Unfortunately, you have to register to post comments and it may take time to be approved. The comments are, of course, less thoughtful than those seen here (for the most part) and Nicholas is accused repeatedly of being a liberal of all things.
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 15:46:55 mst
Comment ID: #51
Name: madmax
E-mail: max34(at)wlcm.net
The NewsBusters post has also sent a flood of Conservatives and Libertarians to the Rule of Reason Blog and turned the comments section into a sewer of Christian nonsense. The charge of Nazi-like eugenics is all you read there. Apparently deciding to abort a retarded fetus is now the same as being a Nazi. Between the socialism of the Left and the religiosity of the Right, sometimes I just want to spit.
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 15:53:25 mst
Comment ID: #52
Name: madmax
E-mail: max34(at)wlcm.net
"Isn't it interesting that the religion of 'love' demands that parents choose the sadistic option of purposefully inflicting unending pain, suffering, and severe disability rather than mercifully preventing it from ever occurring."
All the Christian comments just underscores for me that Christianity is and always has been a cult of death worship. It champions suffering, misery, self-resignation, self-renunciation and martyrdom. And to think, Christians (and the religious in general) actually think that this cult of death worship is necessary as the foundation of society. Christianity -- that weird mix of Judaism, Near-eastern Mystery Cults, Stoicism, Cynicism, and Platonic philosophy -- has been one of the biggest plagues on mankind. Only Islam can be said to be worse.
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 16:50:50 mst
Comment ID: #53
Name: Michelle
E-mail: mome23kjnc(at)roadrunner.com
my child has Down syndrome. She is in no way a burden to me or to her father. She is our child. She is living her life as any other 10 yr old, and she is happy. She is loved, cared for, and very capable. Is she dispoable simply because of her diagnosis? How do we decide who is unworthy, IQ? What will happen when your child is struck by a car and brain damaged? Is he then unworthy, too? Your thought process leaves out one very important aspect: humanity. Good luck raising children, may they never be less than you imagine them to be, lest you kill them for their shortcomings.
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 16:54:56 mst
Comment ID: #54
Name: Andrew
E-mail: andrew.matheny(at)sbcglobal.net
Funny, this article seems to reflect the author's self-glorification.
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 17:04:12 mst
Comment ID: #55
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
Michelle says "What will happen when your child is struck by a car and brain damaged? Is he then unworthy, too?" This is the standard equivocation made by the anti-abortionists. 'You wouldn't do this to a healthy 30 yr old. So you shouldn't do it to a fetus!' - as if the two things are the same. They are not - any more than the straw man the anti-abortionists create is the same as the argument which they try to discredit.
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 17:13:14 mst
Comment ID: #56
Name: Al Myers
E-mail: mearsly(at)hotmail.com
You're wrong on most of the points you make, purely as a matter of fact. Conservatives don't worship retardation, they're just not willing to kill babies in the womb just because those babies are retarded. And no, they don't hate human life as much as the global warming nuts. You're way out on a limb here, Mertz Hsieh, but not atypically.
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 17:45:59 mst
Comment ID: #57
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
Its always amusing to see a fetus called a 'baby'. With such disregard for concepts, one would fully expect such people to call geriatrics 'corpses'. Accurately identifying the state of the entity [ie identifying a fact of reality] - that just doesn't matter. Trying to equivocate in an attempt to rationalize one's emotionalism [ie justifying one's feelings] - THAT is what matters.
As if pretending a thing is something *else* will somehow change reality. It won't - no matter how many times the 'magical' incantation is uttered.
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 17:58:38 mst
Comment ID: #58
Name: JamesB
E-mail: Bandler33(at)hotmail.com
"Trying to equivocate in an attempt to rationalize one's emotionalism [ie justifying one's feelings] - THAT is what matters."
Confusing feelings for facts or substituting emotions for reason is one of the chief epistemological errors of religion (specifically Christianity). The Bible demands it. Seeing the (non)arguments presented here and at Nick's blog, its clear that the anti-abortion camp is dominated by mindless emotionalism. Abortion, more than any other issue, offers the greatest insight into the religious mindset and its (non)thinking methods. Its scary yet enlightening.
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 18:19:36 mst
Comment ID: #59
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
For those who oppose abortion: If I tracked down your offline identity, and hired a professional hit man to shoot you, the hit man would be guilty of first degree murder, and since he would be acting as my agent, so would I. If a fetus has the same right to life as you do, then a doctor who performs abortions professionally is a paid professional killer; and since he's acting as the agent of the women who come to him for abortions, they are also guilty of first degree murder. Are you prepared to call for the death penalty, or life imprisonment, for every doctor who performs abortions and every woman who has one? Let's hear you avow that position, and show how consistent your beliefs are.
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 19:27:54 mst
Comment ID: #60
Name: matt
diana - you're obviously not a parent. I am willing to bet that if you asked your parents to name one thing they wouldn't do for you, they wouldn't be able to name anything. clearly you don't understand what personal sacrifice means, and that's kind of sad.
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 20:00:05 mst
Comment ID: #61
Name: Anonymous
"diana - you're obviously not a parent."
So obviously then, 100% of all parents "understand what personal sacrifice means," right? Well, no. This is a perfect example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
"I am willing to bet that if you asked your parents to name one thing they wouldn't do for you, they wouldn't be able to name anything."
Which means that a couple should become parents only if they're willing to undertake such an obligation. If they aren't, then they should have free access to abortion. Otherwise you end up with the false Scotsmen you ignored above.
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 20:33:09 mst
Comment ID: #62
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Just for the record, my very excellent and loving parents wouldn't do all kinds of things for me -- and rightfully so. I've always admired them for that, in fact. They were -- and are -- real persons with their own lives to lead.
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 21:25:22 mst
Comment ID: #63
Name: Richard Watts
E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net
Matt:
You said, "...clearly you don't understand what personal sacrifice means, and that's kind of sad."
Giving up something you value in order to do something for your child, because you value your child's well-being more than what you gave up, is not a sacrifice at all. That's an instance of pursuing your own selfish values, in your own selfish order of priority. It would be a true sacrifice to neglect your child, whom you value, in order to do something for someone you hate. Sacrifice is not giving up a value to achieve something of equal or greater value. Sacrifice is choosing a *net* loss. It's the destruction of value. Sacrifice is not a virtue.
One's choices to do things for one's already born child whom one has *already* chosen to give birth to, and committed to raising, are one thing. The choice whether to create a child in the first place, by carrying a fetus to term and giving birth, is quite another thing. And the choice whether to create a retarded child, who will never be able to fully function in the capacity of a human being, is another matter yet.
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 21:36:23 mst
Comment ID: #64
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
There's another angle to this question of parental responsibility. I think of parents as trustees, whose job is to manage their child's life while the child is not yet competent to do so, making the decisions on the child's behalf that they believe the child would make if it understood the situation in an adult way. But with a small child, and certainly with a fetus, there is no actual evidence of what the child's values are; the closest approximation we have is that the parents decide according to their own values, which they assume the child will grow up to share, as if they were in the place of the child. For example, Christian parents tend to have their children baptized, and to recruit godparents who accept the Christian faith in the child's name and on its behalf.
Well, one of my own most deeply held values is the value I place on my own mind, with its powers of reason, choice, and self-awareness. I'm 58 years old, and the end of my life has come in view; the generation of my family above mine have all died. But it's not death that I dread; it's the possibility of long-term mental disability, through Alzheimer syndrome or some other condition. Compared to that, death is no terror; it would strike me as a release. I have left instructions that, if I am permanently comatose, no extraordinary measures are to be taken to keep me alive; if I could legally do it, I would seek euthanasia if faced with lesser but grave mental disability.
So if I were a parent-to-be, and faced with genetic evidence that my child would be born with profound mental retardation, I would look at that as a condition I would wish to be spared, if I were facing it; and, acting in my future child's best interest, I would want to spare it that same condition. You can talk all you like about the happiness of some deeply mentally retarded children; if you offered me a surgical treatment that would grant me that happiness, I would recoil in horror, and if you proposed to force it on me, I would give my life to escape it. There are, certainly, good reasons not to give parents that legal discretion for children who have been born. But there are equally good reasons to make abortion the pregnant woman's choice, and given that abortion is an option, I think in this case it would be the best one.
And no doubt, if it came to it, it would be hard. But sometimes death is an expression of love.
A few years ago, my older cat came down with a disabling condition, one that both made him physically weak and at risk of dying, and sharply decreased his intelligence. There were surgical treatments that could give him temporary relief, but no permanent help. We were faced with the prospect of having his chest cavity surgically drained every few weeks for the rest of his life. And we flinched, and said, "That's no life for a cat." He would not have understood what he was going through; he would only have had repeated fear and suffering, to give him a shadow of his proper existence. We would have been doing it for ourselves, because we didn't have the courage to let him got. Instead we told the vets to euthanize him, and sat and petted him and cried buckets while they did so. And I put it to you that if you cannot understand why we made that choice, then you don't know what love is.
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 22:24:06 mst
Comment ID: #65
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Matt wrote: "Diana - you're obviously not a parent. I am willing to bet that if you asked your parents to name one thing they wouldn't do for you, they wouldn't be able to name anything. clearly you don't understand what personal sacrifice means, and that's kind of sad."
I wouldn't have wanted parents who would "do anything for me." They weren't my slaves. Or are you trying to say that I should have thought of them as though they were?
|
| Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 23:59:08 mst
Comment ID: #66
Name: Brad Bryant
E-mail: braddagio(at)hotmail.com
I agree with those that think that Palin's use of baby Trip smacks of being a "prop". A sensible person might take from the situation that it is a play at "morality" that does the child no service...and Palin's possible VP nod would lead down a road offering scant mothering that such a child would need. But I don't wish to overplay politics on this issue...
What I don't agree with is the general tenor of Diana's post (and many supporting replies). The gist seems to be that the retarded are inherently doomed to pathetic, miserable lives and allowing them to lead those lives is an affront to reason and the advancement of society. I find any blanket viewpoint of the retarded such as this shocking and difficult to read. Could not disagree more.
My brother is retarded and to think of his life being squelched makes me want to jump off a bridge. I would hope my love for him is not merely a "selfish" grasp at morality...but more the love of beauty, happiness, and family that he exudes and embodies. It seems to me to be a perfectly valid argument (put forth by someone above) that perhaps the more "self-aware" retarded are prone more to episodes of unhappiness from their condition...but I have also worked with the severely retarded (which my brother falls more in this line) that generally seem to be the happiest people I have run across on this earth. A fully intelligent human might construe this happiness as ignorance and that might be right. But it is Happiness.
Do we comdemn the birds for their ignorance? The trees for their stupidity? Dogs for their loyalty to stupid masters? This question is of course rhetorical because life is what it is. I do not come from a Christian viewpoint...but I cannot shake the belief in a God who has helped the stars to align to form life. What does it say for the "intelligence" of man when forfeit life on the grounds of being weak? Who said societies are judged by how they treat their weakest?
I am not entirely against abortion...and can even understand the decisions made by those that chose to abort fetuses determined to be retarded if the parents think they (or their situations) are not up to the task. My viewpoint is that a fetus's potential productivity in society should not be the deciding factor in whether they make the finish line. There will exponentially more unproductive members of society (blessed with full intelligence) to the conclusion of civilization. Spare a fetus from a life of pain and suffering...but please don't think that pain and suffering go hand in hand with retardation.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 5:34:58 mst
Comment ID: #67
Name: h-man
E-mail: h_blend(at)hotmail.com
Children with special needs,” Gov. Sarah Palin said during her acceptance speech at the Republican convention, “inspire a special love.”
That statement is interpreted as "worship of retardation" by Diana. All of the objectivist seem to agree. Would not an objectivist mother say something similar? I don't get it.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 5:43:45 mst
Comment ID: #68
Name: h-man
E-mail: h_blend(at)hotmail.com
In addition I have read that Arthur Miller sent his retarded child to an institution and never visited the child. (unlike most Down Syndrome children, that child lived well into old age as I recall) Certainly that was not a "celebration of retardation". Is that the proper approach for an objectivist parent?
Compliments to William Stoddard for his dispassionate answers to the questions of Sergio.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 5:45:19 mst
Comment ID: #69
Name: Michelle
E-mail: mome23kjnc(at)roadrunner.com
it is interesting that so many of you think you can magically know without question that a child WILL be mentally retarded. You cannot. Nevermind that valuing anyone for their IQ alone is abhorrant. There is no test for MR prior to birth, in fact no reliable test exists that can measure IQ until 6 or so. So, for starters, in your rush to weed out the undesirable, you are making a very broad assumption about human potential. And you would be wrong. But who says IQ is the only measure of humanity? If you are using IQ as grounds for life and death decisions, you better be prepared to give up your own right to life if society finds reason to make you disposable. Old age? Infirmity? Car accident? Do any of you who agree with this garbage have anyone in your live's who you love that is affected by a disability? Alzheimer's? If society decided they, too, were disposable, would you be so quick to be on board? Your Mothers and Fathers are getting older, shall we off them, too? If we as a society set limits on what is expected to be valued as human, then we as a society MUST accept if those rules deprive us of our own rights. If society decides a fat gene makes you undesirable, then you have no choice but to give up your right to life, because society deemed you unworthy. You, like Trig Palin, would not get a vote. What about kids with autism? Know any? Well, guess what? Scientists are looking for the gene now, and it is only a matter of time till we declare that we can identify people with autism prenatally. Huntington''s? So what if you will live 30 years before it strikes. Off with you. This is the danger of making human differences value markers for living.
This article talks specifically about Sarah Palin's son Trig, who has Down syndrome. It makes some broad assumptions. That life with DS is a life of "pain and sffering". Tell that to my 4th grader, who is planning a sleepover this Friday, and her friends, who love her. Tell that to my friend's child, whose smile lights up the room, who people are drawn to like magnets but who will likely never speak. He brings out more gentleness, more kindness, more caring than anyone I have ever seen. And oh, by the way, more and more people with Down syndrome are testing in the normal range for IQ. Many are working, living independently, driving, even marrying. Clearly, it is wrong to base the right to life on IQ, but on a very basic level it is technically impossible to even use IQ as a measurement prenatally. That said, many people with extremely high IQs live virtually wasted lives. Many abuse drugs and alcohol, some are criminals, child sex offenders tend towards higher IQs.
IQ aint everything. Any person that proclaims themselves a hero of human rights is kidding themselves if they ever see their own rights as more valuable than anyone else's. "I value human rights" kinda goes out the window when their is a litmus test to being granted them at all.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 5:53:50 mst
Comment ID: #70
Name: Michelle
E-mail: mome23kjnc(at)roadrunner.com
Myth: People with Down syndrome have a short life span.
Truth: Life expectancy for individuals with Down syndrome has increased dramatically
in recent years, with the average life expectancy approaching that of peers without Down
syndrome.
Arthur Miller's son Daniel was sent away, absolutely. His Mother visited him weekly. SOCIETY deemed these kids undesirable back then. Now, like it or not, they have RIGHTS. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Just like you.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 6:01:18 mst
Comment ID: #71
Name: z
E-mail: shekfu(at)hotmail.com
Why do those who object to Diana insist that her thinking leads to killing anyone who gets old or needs help? She's simply saying that its OK to have an abortion, even if it is to avoid having a DS baby. Why do you all take it to mean getting rid of DS people already born? She's just reaffirming the right to have the abortion and supporting those who do.
Those who oppose this are gearing up to try to stop these abortions. Diana is perfectly justified in opposing them. These people try to elevate DS people as if they are special or better! But if we say they are NOT, that doesn't mean we say "kill them".
DS people are not ambassadors from god. They are not special. They have a syndrome. I don't hate them. I don't hate you for raising them. I know some DS people, they don't repulse me. I'm not going to put them on a pedestal. They don't deserve a pedestal. They are regular people with an impairment.
Aborting a DS fetus is not immoral.
Once it's born, he or she has rights.
They don't deserve a pedestal.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 6:13:47 mst
Comment ID: #72
Name: Michelle
E-mail: mome23kjnc(at)roadrunner.com
I dont have my child on a pedestal. In fact, just the opposite. I am asking you to see her life for what it is...NORMAL. The axis of the thinking here is that people with DS have lives unworthy of living, that they are burdens, draws on society...I am saying the truth is this: my child is not a burden to me, to you, or anyone else. She is just a CHILD. She learns differently, but she learns well. She is bright, funny, engaging, valuable. You make your own argument here, when you say they are regular people "with an impairment". I wear glasses and am legally blind, I have an impairment. I am normal, too. DS is just a variation of humanity, these are not some lower class of humanity, they are PEOPLE.
Diana said: "I regard his life as inherently tragic and likely quite miserable" TRIG'S life. TRIG has the right to decide for himself what his life will be. She also said: "abortion as a moral way to prevent the infliction of a miserable, degraded life on the person that will emerge from the womb." It cannot be both ways. My daughter's life is not miserable or degraded. I wager she got more home runs in baseball this year than most kids on her team. She reads at grade level, she attends regular school, she is a KID, with some differences...we all have differences. If you get the right to choose for her that her life (which she loves) is not worth living, *I* get to arbitrarily assign value to your life based on my own standards. I would never do that, because you get the right to your own destiny, just as my daughter gets the right to hers. I dont want anyone to see my kid as "special". I have fought for years to have her treated like a person, any other kid, with no presuppositions about her value and her ability. She is who she is, she has the same intrinsic value as my other 2, the same value I have for you, and even for Diana, to be whoever you are without my direction. To take away your right to be that person would be wrong, it would be presumptious, and it would be DANGEROUS. The crux here is the supposition that life with Down syndrome is somehow less than. It is not. It is just different than your life.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 7:23:57 mst
Comment ID: #73
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Who on earth is talking about having "society" decide anything? There is a great deal of difference between saying that these decisions should be made by the state, and that they should be made by the affected individuals. I do not want the government to decide that I'm surplus and can be killed; but I would personally rather be dead than live on with profound Alzheimer syndrome, and I think the law should permit me to make that choice. It's my life, and I should have the right to dispose of it when it becomes a burden to me. The ancient world recognized this right; the prohibition of suicide was imposed on society specifically by Christians who believed that their lives did not belong to them, but to God, and was part of a long and destructive process of imposing Christianity coercively. I can advocate the right to die without advocating the duty to be killed by the state, just as I can advocate the right to engage in productive work without advocating slavery or forced labor.
And there is a similar difference between advocating that individual women should have the right to decide they do not want to carry their pregnancies to term, and advocating that the state should step in and decide which pregnancies are or are not acceptable. Those women are not choosing for everybody. They are choosing for themselves. Their choices in no way prevent anyone else from choosing differently; as Ayn Rand said about the poor and the disabled, "If you want to help them, you will not be stopped."
Nor does this imply the killing of handicapped children after birth. Once a child has been born, it has the right to life. What has been argued for above has been that there is a sharp line to be drawn at birth, with the right to life starting there. Denying the right to life to newborn infants would be erasing that line, just as granting it to fetuses would be. It doesn't do credit to the anti-abortion position that its defenders can only argue for it by distorting and misrepresenting the position they're arguing against.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 8:16:51 mst
Comment ID: #74
Name: becklinn77
E-mail: becklinn77(at)gmail.com
Response to #49
"If allowed to come to term, the resulting human being will be trapped in a torture chamber of a human body and suffer mental damage equivalent to a sledge hammer being taken to the brain."
-You obviously only read into my post what you wanted to hear. I said she is HAPPY. She is full of joy. She is not suffering. If her parents had chosen to end the pregnancy they would have denied her the right to the life that she currently enjoys.
If you want to argue that mothers shouldn't be "burdened" - whatever. That just shows your selfishness. When you argue that you are protecting the child from suffering, you are only trying to make yourself feel better about your selfish choice.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 9:05:21 mst
Comment ID: #75
Name: h-man
E-mail: h_blend(at)hotmail.com
William Stoddard
Granting your arguments about the inadvisability of anti-abortion laws, I am specifically asking what is the appropriate attitude of parents of have a retarded child. Period, end of subject. If you are saying that objectivist ethics has nothing to say about the behavior of parents in that situation, then say it instead of scurrying behind legal arguments on abortion. BTW objectivist ethics would be pretty useless if it can't do that. I'm not talking about society, but real parents and children which is what Diana is doing.
1) Many children are born retarded (mentally challenged/whatever) without prior knowledge by their parents before the birth.
2) Diana mocked the attitude of Sarah Palin as "worship of retardation" and ascribed that attitude to all Christians.
3) Diana is an atheist, Arthur Miller was an atheist. He abandoned his child as unfit. If I were to argue as Diana does then I would make a stupid statement wouldn't I?
4) Between the approach of Sarah Palin and Arthur Miller which would be appropriate by a true objectivist.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 9:23:02 mst
Comment ID: #76
Name: h-man
E-mail: h_blend(at)hotmail.com
William Stoddard
"If you want to help them, you will not be stopped."
Rand's punchline is cute. Her abrupt switches could be annoying though.
If Rand is suggesting that individuals would not be forced to abandon their principles, then would not Paul Hiesh's argument that the government (operating by majority rule) could not cut back funding to medical institutions that forced their employees to perform abortions. I am not talking about the principles of the employees, but instead the principles of the voting public.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 9:35:12 mst
Comment ID: #77
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
h-man: You have misrepresented what I said in quite a few ways now. It's annoying, and it needs to stop.
First, I did not criticize Sarah Palin's statement about Trig as worship of retardation: it was the NRO article that I criticized as embodying that attitude, precisely because retardation was upheld as a kind of special value.
Second, I did not say that all Christians worship retardation. Some of them do: "That's a good expression of the mind-set of so many of today's devout Christians." That's undeniable, given some of the comments here and on Nick's blog.
Parents have obligations to care for their own retarded children, just as they have obligations to care for their own normal children. That's never been an issue here. The question is whether (1) a woman has a right to abort a deformed fetus, rather than risk a lifetime of sacrifice to a disabled child (YES), (2) whether doing so is moral (YES), and (3) whether retardation should be regarded as a special value (NO).
Contrary to the hysterical cries of the anti-abortionists, to uphold the morality of abortion of a deformed fetus does not imply -- in any way, shape, or form -- doing anything other than respecting the rights and dignity of every person after birth.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 9:49:02 mst
Comment ID: #78
Name: Wendy
Objectivist ethics deals with principles and the life of the average healthy human being, not about corner cases or gray areas which must be taken individually and _in context_. That is what governs what a parent would or should do in a given case. Ethics is _not_ about "if there were two people who fell off a boat, who would you save?" That is the realm of university college professors, not true philosophers.
As Mr. Stoddard pointed out, this is a discussion about abortion and not about retarded living children, who, having been born, now have rights. What is it that anyone supporting Diana has said that made you think otherwise?
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 10:02:54 mst
Comment ID: #79
Name: Michelle
E-mail: mome23kjnc(at)roadrunner.com
again-you cannot know if a child has MR before birth, or even immediately after. Hence the discussion of living children and their inherent value, regardless of IQ.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 10:50:20 mst
Comment ID: #80
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Why can't you tell if a child is likely to be mentally retarded? If we're talking about Down syndrome, it ought to be straightforward: extract a fetal cell by amniocentesis and do karyotyping. If you have trisomy for chromosome 21, you can anticipate Down syndrome. You don't need to do anything complicated like DNA sequence; you just need an optical microscope. Then it's just a question of making the best decision you can based on the results of medical tests, which is the same thing you'd do if you had evidence of diabetes, or cancer, and needed to decide whether to undergo the pain and expense of treatment.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 11:14:15 mst
Comment ID: #81
Name: z
E-mail: shekfu(at)hotmail.com
Michelle said: "I dont have my child on a pedestal. In fact, just the opposite. I am asking you to see her life for what it is...NORMAL. The axis of the thinking here is that people with DS have lives unworthy of living, that they are burdens, draws on society"
You are misunderstanding what is being said, which I don't blame you for since this is probably an emotional issue for you since you think we are picking on you or your kid, which we are not. I don't think anyone said it is wrong to choose to raise a child with DS. We are not accusing YOU of worshiping a disability.
We are saying that some people dont want a DS baby, and they have the right to avoid having one through the process of abortion. We are saying that the people who are trying to negate this right are elevating a disability into a badge of honor that it doesn't deserve.
Also, understand that when I say the disability does not deserve a badge of honor, that does *not* mean that an *individual* with the disability is incapable of honor, virtue, or normalcy. We are saying they are putting the *disability* on a pedestal, which is unwarranted. This whole issue is getting confused by people who are trying to link our arguments to thing that do not logically follow from our arguments. (Also, though I use the word "we" I am not claiming to speak for anyone else.)
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 12:10:40 mst
Comment ID: #82
Name: Michelle
E-mail: mome23kjnc(at)roadrunner.com
"Why can't you tell if a child is likely to be mentally retarded?"
is being mentally retarded such a crime? And..."likely"? Some people are "likely" to become criminals, do we kill them just in case? Some people are likely to develop cancer...what of them? The premise of this discussion was that having MR was the gold standard, if a kid would have MR, he should be aborted. My point is, you do not KNOW if a person has MR until you test them for it...around age 6. Not that IQ matters a whit, but if that is what YOU are using as the basis for killing people, then you are wrong..it cannot be known before birth, and so should not be a measurement in the decision. Not everyone with DS will have MR, and those who do are just as valuable as those who do not. My point is not that some should escape because they dont, it is that none should be PREJUDGED. We are not the sum of our IQ.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 12:28:13 mst
Comment ID: #83
Name: h-man
E-mail: h_blend(at)hotmail.com
I apologize for any misrepresentation.
(1) The article in the National Review link doesn't "celebrate retardation" either. The man is merely restating the golden rule and how actually having to practice it made him a better person. But I grant that going overboard on his sacrifice could be interpreted as such a celebration.
(2) Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding, but your first statement "I'm disgusted by the worship of retardation exhibited by Christians" seemed to indicate such views apply that to all christians. But your second sentence should have alerted me that that was not the case. I am not familar with Nick"s blog, but I will hurry over there and annoy him when I have time. I personally am a Christian who chooses to not go to church on Sunday err.. or maybe a Jew who chooses not to go to synagogue on Saturday instead.
(3) "Contrary to the hysterical cries of the anti-abortionists, to uphold the morality of abortion of a deformed fetus does not imply -- in any way, shape, or form -- doing anything other than respecting the rights and dignity of every person after birth"
I especially like your statement about "respecting"...dignity of people regardless of their unfortunate mental condition. When you earlier felt it necessary to say you pitied such people I perhaps thought such was not be the case.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 12:29:23 mst
Comment ID: #84
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
I was writing about abortion because it was brought up as an issue, specifically by Sergio, and because I had clearly organized thoughts on it. I don't know if I have clearly organized thoughts on parenthood and parental values. I'm not going to try to give a coherent, conclusive argument; I'm just going to say what comes to mind. And I should emphasize that I am not saying this as a statement of the Objectivist position. It goes beyond what Rand said; perhaps Peikoff has addressed it somewhere that I haven't seen, or someone else connected with the Ayn Rand Institute, and I would encourage you to look there.
In Objectivist terms, I think that children are an optional value. And while optional values are objective, they are not based on universal facts about the human species, or about living beings; they are based on facts that are specific to individuals. And many of those facts are quite subtle and make themselves know to our consciousness immediately in such forms as personal tastes, which have a rather "subjective" appearance. So I'm going to take what you might call a "literary" approach to this.
So: What are you having a child for? Why is a child a value to you? What do you hope to gain from having it?
One answer is that you value the child as a living tool, like a guard dog or a beast of burden; you want it to provide you with valuable services, and you want it to be obedient to your orders, as a farmhand, or a worker you can hire out, or a servant. Historically that is how many children were treated. But since the Industrial Revolution, that view of children has become obsolete, thanks to our much enhanced wealth.
Another answer is that children are a source of pleasure: that they exist to give us affection, and to play and amuse us, and to radiate happiness into our lives. And certainly that's a source of value in children for many people. But I don't think that valuing children only for that is a good thing. If that's all you want, you should get a dog. A well treated dog will be cognitively impaired, and will be dependent on human care, but it will greet you joyfully, and give you affection, and make you happy. And treating a dog as a pet does not involve treating it as something that falls short of its proper nature, or at least not so much as treating a child as a pet.
A child's proper nature is to grow up, and to become an independent, rational being. And a parent with good motives wants to help their children achieve this. That's the philosophically best value to be attained from a child, the value proper to child qua child.
Let me give you a bit of science fiction. We hear about how delightfully the mentally disabled are, and how much love they give their families. Well, in just a few years, it will be possible to create such conditions artificially, through genetic manipulation; for example, we might extract a third chromosome 21 from another person, and implant it into the fertilized ovum, to produce artificial trisomy 21. How would you feel about a parent who did that? Or suppose we learned how to identify the genetic switch that controls maturation, and turn it off, to produce a child who would forever remain five years old. Would you consider that ethical? I would not, because it would be turning children from independent adults in production, into consumer goods for the gratification of their parents, and I don't consider it proper to human beings to exist purely as playthings or sources of emotional gratification for other human beings.
Now, if you have a child, and it turns out to be mentally disabled, of course you don't have the right to kill it; and it's a good thing for you to find what gratification you can in it. But that's a compensatory value, not a primary one. It's like Robert Nozick's example: being cured of cancer is a value, but you can't be cured of cancer unless you have cancer, so is having cancer a value? If you have a child with these problems, of course you need to take what pleasure you can in them. But if you have the choice, it's better not to choose to have such a child, not if it can't ever lead the life proper to a human being.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 12:47:04 mst
Comment ID: #85
Name: h-man
E-mail: h_blend(at)hotmail.com
"A child's proper nature is to grow up, and to become an independent, rational being"
Same can be said about a fetus, unless there is intervention.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 12:57:19 mst
Comment ID: #86
Name: h-man
E-mail: h_blend(at)hotmail.com
Michelle
"Not everyone with DS will have MR"
True, but irrelevant. Stoddard, Diana, etc.. think it is moral to abort a perfectly healthy child (excuse me fetus).
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 13:13:38 mst
Comment ID: #87
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
Brad said "Do we comdemn the birds for their ignorance? The trees for their stupidity? Dogs for their loyalty to stupid masters?"
And Michelle said "is being mentally retarded such a crime?"
KNOWINGLY condemning a HUMAN BEING to be SO brain damaged that they may only achieve the cognitive status of "dogs", "birds", or "trees" (that's called being a vegetable. people!!) when one could actually PREVENT such a horror state from ever coming to pass is the "crime" (the grotesque EVIL) which people are actually PROMOTING here. This WILLFUL CHOICE of PURPOSEFULLY creating such a "severely" crippled human being when it can in fact be PREVENTED before it EVER HAPPENS cannot be identified as anything LESS than "worship of retardation". It is the worship of inhumane cruelty.
That this is identified as 'love' is all the more grotesque, for such individuals attempt to destroy the concept of love with such usage.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 13:19:07 mst
Comment ID: #88
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Correction: Think it's immoral to forcibly prevent a woman from doing so. We have not discussed the morality of the action. Personally, I think the morally responsible course of action is to use the most reliable contraceptive methods available to you, and turn to abortion only for backup if you have an accidental failure and do not choose to become a parent; and if you do choose to become a parent, to carry through with the plan, in which case you would have no reason to abort. But I don't think it's the government's business to step in and judge whether a woman is making the right choice. She knows better than anyone else what price she has to pay for having a child; it's the height of arrogance to think you're entitled to dictate to her whether she should pay that price.
For comparison, I think it's immoral to be a Christian, or to have religious faith. But I think it would be a greater evil to try to stop people from being Christian, practicing Christian worship, living by Christian ethics, or preaching Christian beliefs to others, as long as they rely on persuasion and don't turn to force. They may be making bad choices, but it's not my business to run their lives for them.
As for not everyone with trisomy 21 being retarded, that objection applies to all medical tests. If my thyroid biopsy had come up unfavorable, there would have been a chance that it was wrong and I didn't really have thyroid cancer; but I still would have had the surgery. You have the test, you assess the risks, and you make the best choice you can. Demanding that all decisions be made on the basis of infallible certainty is setting a standard that human beings can't meet; it's ethically irrelevant to human life.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 13:24:29 mst
Comment ID: #89
Name: JamesB
E-mail: Bandler33(at)hotmail.com
Diana used the expression "the worship of retardation." I agree but I think it goes beyond that to the worship of suffering and misery; which is the real essence of religion especially Christianity.
Christianity specializes in the worship of meekness, weakness and sacrifice. God sacrificed his only son who was himself God - oh never mind about that silly little contradiction -- for the rest of mankind; ie God sacrificed the best for the worst, the noble for the sinful, the virtuous for the vice-ridden. Is it any wonder that true believing Christians would see "grace" and "divinity" in a retarded child? Their just emulating their prophet. Conservatives and especially serious Christians *Love* suffering. This is their metaphysics. And nowhere is that more apparent than with religious anti-abortionists.
It strikes me as funny that Christians think they can defeat Islam as Christians loyal to the New Testament. If its a clash between "turn-the-other-cheek", meek little lamb Christians vs "kill-the-infidel" Muslims, who do you think will win?
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 13:41:29 mst
Comment ID: #90
Name: michelle
Brian, I owe you nothing more than disdain and revulsion, but here goes: I pity you. You go ahead and try to measure the IQ of a tree, then let me know how it compares, mmm'k? People with MR are not vegetables. They are not birds or dogs, or anything but people. Again, there is NO TEST for IQ prior to birth, so however you intend to choose your victims is based on a fallacy. You CANNOT know who will or will not have MR prenatally. Having MR does not equate to no life, jackass. And there is no horror here, not even a little bit of suffering. I pity people like you, who are so sure they are perfect. Give me ten kids with DS and their hearts to one idiot with nothing to offer but stupidity and cruelty.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 14:05:13 mst
Comment ID: #91
Name: Sergio Oliveira Jr.
E-mail: sergio.oliveira.jr(at)gmail.com
If God and religion is brought to the discussion then the debate is completely wasted. The answers are: "God wants to!", "It is good to sacrifice yourself for another human being!". This is anti-life and the source of all unhappiness in this world. (Mine and Rand's opinion, ok?)
That said I think that it is up to the woman to decide what to do with her body and her pregnancy.
BUT the most important point is: Instead of fighting for abortion, let's fight for birth control widespread campaign, let's fight for day-after pill, let's fight for teaching kids and teens that unprotected sex it is not about AIDS it is about PREGNANCY.
Pregnancy is a very big deal. If it was an accident (like someone driving reckless and causing an accident) and if you feel that you don't want to pay the cost (you really don't have to) of your reckless sex, than it is fine. Just interrupt the pregnancy in the early stages and please be careful next time.
I believe that the choice of abortion of a DS is entirely up to the parents. I hope this can be detected and done in early stages so it can be less traumatic if that's what they really want to do.
BUT parents that choose NOT to interrupt are not necessarily doing this for God or for the disgusting pleasure of self-sacrifice. They are doing this because they feel it is the right thing to do and they want to go through that experience. This is not necessarily self-sacrifice as other people here have mentioned. I can even be a wonderful experience.
Two things here:
- Christian people: Please read Ayn Rand. If God does not exist, then it is not true that everything is possible!
- Objectivist people: Please read this:
http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_an ...
Conflating Sacrifice and Benevolence
Now let us move on to still another aspect of the Rand philosophy that entails a great contribution, on the one hand, and a serious omission, on the other. I have already stressed that in the objectivist ethics a human being is regarded as an end in him- or herself and exists properly for his or her own sake, neither sacrificing self to others nor sacrificing others to self. The practice of human sacrifice is wrong, said Rand, no matter by whom it is practiced. She was an advocate of what we may call enlightened selfishness or enlightened self-interest.
Needless to say, this is a viewpoint that I support unreservedly.
I noted earlier that, when we want to understand a thinker, it’s generally useful to understand what that person may be reacting against. I believe that in desire to expose the evil of the notion that self-sacrifice is a virtue and in her indignation at the very idea of treating human beings as objects of sacrifice, she presented her case for rational self-interest or rational selfishness in a way that neglected a very important part of human experience. To be precise, she didn’t neglect it totally; but she did not deal with it adequately, did not give it the attention it deserves.
I am referring to the principle of benevolence, mutual helpfulness and mutual aid between human beings. I believe it is a virtue to support life. I believe it is a virtue to assist those who are struggling for life. I believe it is a virtue to seek to alleviate suffering. None of this entails the notion of self-sacrifice. I am not saying that we should place the interests of others above our own. I am not saying that our primary moral obligation is to alleviate the pain of others. I am not saying that we do not have the right to place our own interests first. I am saying that the principle of benevolence and mutual aid is entirely compatible with an ethic of self-interest and more: An ethic of self-interest logically must advocate the principle of benevolence and mutual aid.
Given that we live in society, and given that misfortune or tragedy can strike any one of us, it is clearly in our self-interest to live in a world in which human beings deal with one another in a spirit of mutual benevolence and helpfulness. Could anyone seriously argue that the principle of mutual aid does not have survival value?
I am not talking about “mutual aid” coercively orchestrated by a government. I am talking about the private, voluntary actions of individual men and women functioning on their own initiative and by their own standards. By treating the issue of help to others almost entirely in the context of self-sacrifice and/or in the context of government coercion, Rand largely neglects a vast area of human experience to which neither of these considerations apply. And the consequence for too many of her followers is an obliviousness to the simple virtues of kindness, generosity, and mutual aid, all of which clearly and demonstrably have biological utility, meaning: survival value.
There are too many immature, narcissistic individuals whose thinking stops at the point of hearing that they have no obligation to sacrifice themselves to others. True enough, they don’t. Is there nothing else to be said on the subject of help to others? I think there is and I think so precisely on the basis of the objectivist standard of ethics: man’s/woman’s life and well-being.
Would you believe that sometimes in therapy clients speak to me with guilt of their desire to be helpful and kind to others? I am not talking about manipulative do-gooders. I am talking about persons genuinely motivated by benevolence and good will, but who wonder whether they are “good objectivists.”
“ Have I ever said that charity and help to others is wrong or undesirable?,” Rand might demand. No, she hasn’t; neither has she spoken very much about their value, beyond declaring that they are not the essence of lifeâ€"and of course they are not the essence of life. They are a part of life, however, and sometimes an important part of life, and it is misleading to allow for people to believe otherwise.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 14:39:56 mst
Comment ID: #92
Name: JamesB
E-mail: Bandler33(at)hotmail.com
Michelle,
You are offering no arguments. All you are doing is engaging in pure emotionalism and personal attack. You are conforming to the stereotype of the irrational, emotionalist Christian. This is not helping you and in fact adding to the already sorry spectacle that is the anti-abortion camp.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 14:44:14 mst
Comment ID: #93
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
Michelle said: "Having MR does not equate to no life, jackass." Ah, straw men AND personal attacks. Isn't it lovely how the lack of an argument inevitably results in these two things?
"And there is no horror here, not even a little bit of suffering." Wow. Brain damage the equivalent of a sledge hammer being taken to the brain is NOT horrific, nor even just a 'little bit of suffering'. Yeah, the human who has been PURPOSEFULLY IMPRISONED in a body which, to use a real life example given in this very thread, "cannot walk or talk" "cannot roll over or sit up", "cannot swallow more than a few drops at a time" and "all her nourishment and liquid needs must be delivered through a feeding tube."
That such is NOT considered suffering says EVERYTHING which need be said here.
"Give me ten kids with DS and their hearts to one idiot with nothing to offer but stupidity and cruelty." Yes, we have already established you prefer emotions over reason (or even a rational capacity). But thanks for at least admitting your preference here explicitly. It confirms everything which has been stated about your philosophy.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 14:47:45 mst
Comment ID: #94
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
If you want something that doesn't have full human cognitive skills, but does have emotions, get a pet. Don't purposefully create a cripple to satisfy some twisted emotional desire.
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 21:32:32 mst
Comment ID: #95
Name: Francesca
E-mail: fs(at)yahoo.com
OK, this is the final nail in the coffin of my former objectivism. Buh-bye.
Btw, if you're not willing to make sacrifices for your children, or regard it as a burden, you shouldn't become parents. Perhaps the most rational and moral thing for such thinkers as yourselves then is sterilization?
|
| Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 21:36:34 mst
Comment ID: #96
Name: Elisheva Levin
E-mail: elisheva(at)unm.edu
URL: http://ragamuffinstudies.blogspot.com
To go back to the comments around number 47:
Yes, as a matter of biology, birth is the most reasonable line to draw for defining separate personhood and the matter of rights.
A slight digression: A fetus, properly speaking is the developing baby of 12 weeks gestation to birth. Prior to this, the developmental stages have names based on the number of cell types. Fetus simply means baby, so the argument over what to call it is unimportant.
But it is not because the fetus is drawing nourishment from the amniotic fluid. There is a major difference between fetal circulation and the circulation of the baby that has taken its first breath. In the fetus, the heart has a large hole--the foramen ovule--that causes circulation to bypass the lungs. It is the maternal blood that brings oxygen and nutrients into the placenta. Maternal blood does not actually mix with fetal blood, however, but the gases and nutrients are exchanged across membranes in the placenta. From the fetal side, wastes are passed across the membranes and into maternal circulation. Fetal circulation and survival is entirely dependent on maternal circulation. The fetus is completely dependent upon the mother for survival until the first breath is drawn--usually when the head is born or soon thereafter. At the point of first breath, fetal circulation changes into the individual circulation the infant will have for the rest of life. That change is dramatic and allows for independent life. Prior to birth it is possible to talk about the fetus as separate in the genetic sense, but not in the biological sense. If the mother dies, the fetus dies. If the mother's oxygen intake is compromised, the fetus often dies even if the mother survives. If the mother dies following birth, it is possible for the infant to continue to live. Birth seems to be the beginning of a separate life.
Historically, most human societies--even those tribal ones that Objectivists love to disparage--have recognized birth as the beginning of a separate person's life for these reasons. It would have been impossible for prior to very recently to imagine a situation in which the interests of the fetus are different from the interests of the mother. And that is the biological truth of the matter. Until birth, the fetus does not have separate interests, and is not properly an individual with individual rights.
Thus in many traditional societies (including that of the biblical Israelites), a woman would get tort compensation for her injury if someone hit her to cause a miscarriage, but she would not be entitled to bring manslaughter charges. Also, the loss of a child during childbirth was not mourned by the community. In fact, in some societies the baby had to be a month or more old to receive a full-fledged funeral upon death.
About Downs:
It is no insult to Downs children to discuss the reality that until modern technology, such babies were unlikely to survive long after birth. MR is the most well known consequence of the trisomy, but there are many physical anomalies created by that extra chromosome: poor muscle tone, heart problems, GI tract problems, breathing problems, etc. In animals, gene expression is fubared in some fundamental ways by trisomies. (Plants, on the other hand, actually speciate by triploidy and quadriploidy--which is the tripling or greater of the entire genome. Go figure!) Most trisomies in humans do not survive much past the gastrulation phase when the germ layers start to differentiate into cell lines. The reason that we even see the birth of babies with trisomy 21 and 22 probably has to do with the fact that these are the smallest somatic chromosomes, and so the number of genes is smaller, and even then most such conceptions are naturally lost. There are few surviving trisomies for larger c'somes.
So making the choice to bring a Downs child into the world is a serious one. There is no way to tell exactly what the nature and extent of the disability will be. In such cases, I think the people most qualified to make the decision are the parents.As with all pregnancies, I think of this as a private, medical and family matter. It is not a matter for second guessing by those who do not have to take the responsibility and do the work.
|
| Friday, September 19, 2008 at 10:56:03 mst
Comment ID: #97
Name: Per-Olof Samuelsson
E-mail: per-olof.samuelsson(at)swipnet.se
URL: http://www.nattvakt.com
"Btw, if you're not willing to make sacrifices for your children, or regard it as a burden, you shouldn't become parents."
If one regards caring for one's children as sacrifice, one certainly should never become a parent!
|
| Friday, September 19, 2008 at 12:13:40 mst
Comment ID: #98
Name: Richard Watts
E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net
Francesca,you said:
"OK, this is the final nail in the coffin of my former objectivism. Buh-bye.
"Btw, if you're not willing to make sacrifices for your children, or regard it as a burden, you shouldn't become parents."
If you were once interested in Objectivism, and if it was finding out that Objectivism doesn't advocate sacrifice that changed your mind, then you were never really an Objectivist.
If one thinks it would be a net loss to oneself to raise a child, then one should choose not to have a child. But it is not just a matter of whether one *regards* raising a child as a burden. Individuals are not interchangeable -- they do not all have the same circumstances, the same skills, the same interests, the same goals in life. Some individuals can achieve a net benefit to themselves from the process of helping a child to become an independent, functioning adult. For other individuals, having a child would actually detract from their well-being. It might be a benefit to a given individual to have a child at a certain time, or in certain circumstances, but not otherwise. If, for a particular individual, having a child would be an actual sacrifice (if doing so would be choosing a net loss to oneself, over the long run, all things considered), then for one's own sake, one should choose not to give birth, and this choice is not a cause for shame. One has a *right* to one's own life -- the right to live for one's own happiness, one's own well-being.
|
| Friday, September 19, 2008 at 17:59:07 mst
Comment ID: #99
Name: Debbie
E-mail: dmberkley22(at)hotmail.com
Sorry, I haven't had time to read all the comments, but I've read enough at the beginning to see that there is massive misunderstanding of why Christians are against abortion. Simply put, we believe that it is the murder of a person. It has nothing to do with a woman's rights, or forcing people to be parents, etc. It's just about murder. If I didn't belive that a fetus was a person, I would happily be for abortion. It sure would be easier; then I could agree with most of my friends and co-workers.
About worshipping retardation--clearly, since Ms. Hsieh does not understand Christians, she completely misunderstands their language. Don't give me any of this baloney about Christians thinking retardation is more special than intelligence! That's preposterous! A Christian who says that DS children are "ambassadors from God" does not mean that that Christian believes that DS children are almost deified, elevated above other people, holy, etc. It's a shorthand way of saying that that Christian believes that God can use the circumstances of the DS children's lives to teach us something. Saying that their presence elevates us means that their presence, by teaching us how to live better lives, makes us better people. And I can't imagine what Ms. Hsieh could be objecting to in the "mindset" of Christians for having a goal of treating others as we would want to be treated. What on earth is wrong with that?
If people could approach what Christians say without suspicion and prejudice, and try to imagine what could be good motives behind what they say, instead of evil, the world would get along better.
Thanks.
|
| Friday, September 19, 2008 at 20:43:18 mst
Comment ID: #100
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Treating others as one wants to be treated is all very well. Looked at one way, in the negative form of the Golden Rule ("what is hateful to you, do not do to others; that is the law, the rest is commentary; go and learn"), it could even be understood as a call for respect for individual rights. But how do you want to be treated?
Do you want to be cared for as a dependent, who can't survive without being constantly helped by other people, and never will be able to? Do you want to be without the full use of reason, choice, or self-awareness? Because I don't. I could be in that state, in a decade or two, given ill fortune, and I think it would be better to be dead; if our laws offered voluntary euthanasia, I would choose it, in preference to years of Alzheimer's, in which I would lack the mental abilities that I have now, and in which I would be a burden (however willingly it might be borne) on the people I care for. I would want to be spared that, and I would want to spare others that. And were I female, and pregnant, and carrying a child that could rationally be expected to develop such disabilities, I would be able to spare it, as long as abortion was legal.
I do not consider keeping a child alive as a moral exercise, or as a source of emotional gratification, to be an act of benevolence. I consider it to be an emotional self-indulgence by people who lack the courage to do the ethically right thing.
|
| Friday, September 19, 2008 at 21:59:36 mst
Comment ID: #101
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
"I've read enough at the beginning to see that there is massive misunderstanding of why Christians are against abortion." You did not read enough, because there is no misunderstanding here. It is quite well understood that Christians believe abortion is murder - because they believe that clump a clump of cells and a baby or an adult are the same. They are not. To grant human rights to such a biological smear is a debasement of all that is human.
This is not a new discussion. If you are interested in it, you may do a search on the site and find many such discussions. So your conclusion about a "misunderstanding" is false.
"clearly, since Ms. Hsieh does not understand Christians, she completely misunderstands their language" You came to a false conclusion about Ms. Hsieh's understanding of Christian rationalizations. Therefore this new conclusion, based on that prior false conclusion, is also false.
"Saying that their presence elevates us means that their presence, by teaching us how to live better lives, makes us better people." This is exactly the complaint against Christians. It is through the emulation of and subservience to the mentally damaged that men are supposed to somehow be made 'better' than if they followed their reason and held themselves as their standard of value.
So thank you for your confirmation of what Ms. Hsieh stated.
|
| Friday, September 19, 2008 at 23:12:38 mst
Comment ID: #102
Name: Richard Watts
E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net
Debbie, you said:
"...I've read enough at the beginning to see that there is massive misunderstanding of why Christians are against abortion. Simply put, we believe that it is the murder of a person. It has nothing to do with a woman's rights, or forcing people to be parents, etc. It's just about murder."
Your claim "It has nothing to do with a woman's rights, or forcing people to be parents..." is not credible. Christian anti-abortionists definitely do not take the position that no one should interfere in a woman's decision to prevent parenthood by having an abortion. Outlawing abortion would coerce people to become mothers and fathers of children they would then be responsible for.
To say that the issue of abortion has nothing to do with a woman's rights, is to say that a woman has no rights in this matter. The abortion issue is very much an issue of what a woman's rights are. If abortion were murder, as you claim, then a woman would have no right to choose abortion (for any reason whatsoever). If abortion is not murder, then a woman has a moral right to choose abortion (and she does not need to explain her reasons).
Your position is not misunderstood. It's not lost on anyone here that many Christians believe abortion is murder and claim that a fetus is a person. But a fetus is not a person and abortion is not murder. A woman has a moral right to her own life and her own body. These belong to her, they are not the property of a supposed god, nor of a fetus, nor of society. She, not government, is the one who has the right to choose whether she will give birth or whether she will abort a fetus.
Where did Christians get the idea that a fetus has a "right to life"? Is it from the idea that a fetus is a person, and from the idea that all persons have rights? If each person has the right to his or her own life, then a woman's rights belong in this debate.
|
| Friday, September 19, 2008 at 23:19:54 mst
Comment ID: #103
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
I would add to Brian's well taken points that if you believe a fetus is a person, and you believe abortion is murder, it then follows that a doctor who performs abortions is a professional serial killer, and a woman who uses his services has hired an assassin to act as her agent and is guilty of first degree murder. Are Christians prepared to demand that any doctor who performs abortions, and any woman who has one, be treated as first-degree murderers, by being sentenced either to death or to life imprisonment, depending on the jurisdiction? Because if you're a Christian, and you don't believe that, then you don't really believe that a fetus is the moral equivalent of a human being.
|
| Saturday, September 20, 2008 at 7:43:14 mst
Comment ID: #104
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
William -- On your question just above about punishments for people who have or perform abortions, you might look at:
http://www.seculargovernment.us/blog/2008/08/no-punishment-for-abor ...
Be sure to view the Bob Enyart video in the comments. You can also read an article about him here:
http://www.westword.com/1999-12-16/news/thank-god-for-bob/1
He's on the radio for a half hour every day in Denver -- on a Christian station.
|
| Saturday, September 20, 2008 at 9:19:58 mst
Comment ID: #105
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Diana,
Thanks for the link. I'm fairly sure that I had in fact read that post before; in fact, I thought its point was quite telling, and decided to adopt it. I think Paula's comment #4 to you on that same post is a sound assessment of the impact of that point. I notice that the self-identified Christians here conspicuously prefer to ignore any post that asks them this question, perhaps because they have no answer that they're willing to make openly.
You know, this makes me think of the climax of "Atlas Shrugged," where Dagny finally realizes that what truly drives her brother James, though he can't admit it, is the worship of death. It's ironic to suddenly see a movement that claims the label "pro-life" as a death cult. . . .
|
| Sunday, September 21, 2008 at 20:45:01 mst
Comment ID: #106
Name: JJ
I once thought as you do. I sincerely understand why you think the way you do. I neither condemn you nor villianize you. I am positive that your logic and world view construct match perfectly. You simply do not have the frequency that tunes into the station of what those who have walked this path now believe. The joy that our little guy has brought into our lives drowns out the cacophany of voices that try so hard to make sense of what they don't understand. While you wish that what we have would be given to no one, we in turn wish that you could have what we have been given. Only then would you know the mystery of the joy we now know.
|
| Monday, September 22, 2008 at 1:09:50 mst
Comment ID: #107
Name: Debbie
E-mail: dmberkley22(at)hotmail.com
I'm not going to try to answer everything. But yes, it is indeed true that the primary issue for Christians about abortion is not women's rights. The primary issue for Christians is the murder of a person. And, Mr. Watts, you can say "a fetus is not a person," but I don't accept your authority to say so.
Although for most of you a woman's rights are definitely a big issue in abortion, and I can understand why that is so since you do not believe that a fetus is a person, here is why the issue of a woman's rights is not what Christians are focused on in abortion: since we see the fetus as a person who is being murdered, we don't think a woman should ever have the right to choose that, just as (hopefully) you would not think that that same woman would ever have the right to choose to kill that same child after he or she had been born and lived 2 or 3 years, no matter how much that child's existence might negatively impact her life.
And I still claim that Ms. Hsieh did not understand what was written, and neither, apparently, did you, BrianS, understand what I wrote. I was speaking of her misunderstanding the selection that she quoted, which led her to incorrectly state that Christians worship retardation. She did not understand the language in that quotation. I attempted to explain it. Perhaps you could re-read what I wrote.
And, Mr. Stoddard, we do not demand that the doctors and women involved in abortions be arrested because there are currently no laws against abortion. Just because we believe that things are wrong does not mean that we control the legal system.
|
| Monday, September 22, 2008 at 4:57:26 mst
Comment ID: #108
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Debbie: you persist in insisting that your comments have been misunderstood when they were not. We know full well that Christians think that a fetus is a "person." They think that not because there are facts or a rational justification for it (there can be none to justify equivocating between a mass of undifferentiated cells and a human being), but because their religion tells them so. They believe that their god imbues a fertilized ovum with a mystical "soul" at the time of conception, for reasons that are related to their religious worldview and have nothing to do with science or reality. Thanks for the unnecessarily repeated explanations, but *we get it*.
So now that you've told us (for the nth time) what the issue is for "Christians," let me tell you in no uncertain terms what the issue is for *us*. You tell us that you "don't accept our authority to say" that a fetus is not a person. Leaving aside that this is not a matter of authority (it's a matter of looking at facts and reality), why should we accept your authority to say -- on nothing but religious and superstitious grounds -- that it is? We don't believe in your god, or in anything like a mystical soul. We DO believe in the living, breathing, human woman whose rights and freedoms you are so ready to step on in the name of your religious beliefs. I wouldn't sacrifice my inalienable human rights to a band of prancing, superstitious savages demanding an offering to placate a sun god. Why should I treat your religious demands any differently?
Ours is a nation founded on the principle of religious freedom (of and from), and on the separation of church and state. We live in a society that gives people with religious beliefs a simple rule to live by: that you can practice those beliefs, as long as you recognize the equal rights of others *not* to do so, or to practice *different* ones. When you cease to keep to those beliefs as a matter of personal conscience, and try instead to use the power of the state to enforce them on and to violate the individual rights of others who don't hold them, then you declare war on your fellow Americans and on the principles that this great nation was founded on. Just as (and for the same reasons that) the principles of this nation wouldn't allow Satanists to practice ritual human sacrifice in the name of their "religious beliefs," so too will they not allow Christians to sacrifice the rights of *real* women to their religious dogmas.
|
| Monday, September 22, 2008 at 5:48:13 mst
Comment ID: #109
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Regarding the worship of retardation, Debbie wrote: "Saying that their presence elevates us means that their presence, by teaching us how to live better lives, makes us better people." I won't speak for Diana, but that's *exactly* the kind of sentiment that I would argue indicates a "worship of retardation." Why and in what way should special needs children "teach us to live better lives, and make us better people?" This states directly that one is somehow "ennobled" by deliberately making a mentally disabled child a part of one's life. That's the choice you make when you don't abort a "special needs child" and try again to have a healthy one -- if you have the warning and opportunity to do so.
Health and ability are *values*. Having to deal with a disability -- when it happens, and when it is not preventable -- is an unfortunate tragedy, not an opportunity to feel morally special or "elevated."
|
| Monday, September 22, 2008 at 5:57:20 mst
Comment ID: #110
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
One clarification: I should have written, above, that "That's the choice you make when you don't abort a fetus with a severe disability before it actually becomes a 'special needs child,' and try again to have a healthy one..." I had meant to edit that line for clarity before posting, but forgot.
|
| Monday, September 22, 2008 at 8:04:53 mst
Comment ID: #111
Name: joe
E-mail: jrockness(at)hotmail.com
Here is your mistake: Christians "laud retardation as a virtue. In the process, they must -- and do -- disparage normal human intelligence as a vice."
That is false. We laud intelligence. We disparage selfishness. The statement from National Review you are criticizing does not pit intelligence against retardation. It pits our nature of selfishness verses a higher goal of loving others more than ourselves. Those with special needs can help us reject our innate selfishness in an effort help them.
It is ironic that in asserting that Christians disparage intelligence, you have dealt a great blow to the idea of human intelligence with your extememly poor reasoning.
|
| Monday, September 22, 2008 at 9:12:54 mst
Comment ID: #112
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Debbie,
You write, "And, Mr. Stoddard, we do not demand that the doctors and women involved in abortions be arrested because there are currently no laws against abortion. Just because we believe that things are wrong does not mean that we control the legal system."
Don't evade the issue. You advocate changing the laws. I'm asking about the consequences of putting through the changes that you want. Do you advocate changing the laws so that doctors who perform abortions, and women who undergo them, would be subject to legal charges of first-degree murder? If not, then what do you advocate? "Murder" is a legal term, with legal implications; when you say that abortion is murder, do you actually mean it, and do you intend the legal consequences of classifying it as murder, or are you just engaged in inflammatory rhetoric?
|
| Monday, September 22, 2008 at 9:23:36 mst
Comment ID: #113
Name: JJ
Taking this topic to its logical conclusion, it is perfectly understandable why people like the author take this view. It matches perfectly with her world view construct. I would expect her views to be exactly as she has articulated. As a matter of fact, I appreciate her honesty and her willingness to say what many people think. (Only most don't have the guts to do it) To be held in contempt by people who think it and don't say it, hurts more than the people who are brutally honest and say it. As far as what she has stated, it simply gives credibility to the following words written by one of those who long ago would have most certainly disagreed with her point of view....The heart is desperately wicked, and deceitful above all things.
|
| Monday, September 22, 2008 at 9:41:58 mst
Comment ID: #114
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that unselfishness is good, and that it's good to help other people. That is, let's suppose it's our proper goal to help other people as fully as possible.
In the first place, having and raising one profoundly disabled child costs a lot, not just in money but in effort, attention, and emotional commitment. For the resources that you will spend on raising one such child, you could presumably care for two or three developmentally normal children. Having that child precludes your doing so. Especially if you already have several children, having the disabled child is going to take away many resources that you could use in better caring for them and giving them better lives. It seems that the properly unselfish thing to do is put the needs of the many firstâ€"and abort the disabled child. Not doing so could be classified as a selfish indulgence of your personal feelings at the expense of your children's actual needs.
And for that matter, why the focus on one's own prospectively disabled children? That focusing of your effort on children you personally care for is obviously partial and thus selfish. The resources that support one profoundly disabled American child could save many children in poorer countries from grim deaths.
Utilitarian philosophers have a phrase: "utility monster," meaning someone whose person pleasure and pain is more intense than other people's, and who therefore needs to receive benefits from society to maximize social utility, even at the cost of inflicting equal harm on a much larger number of people. In saying that it's a good thing for people to carry pregnancies that will result in profoundly disabled children to term, and raise those children, you are saying that it's a good thing to spend several or many times the resources on one such child that you spend on developmentally normal children; that amounts to treating their utility as outweighing the utility of other children by that big a factor: to treating them as if they were utility monsters.
When a society deliberately grants arranges for people from old families with noble titles to get more wealth and more advantages than other people, we call that "aristocracy"; it's treating those people as having more value than other people. What you've proposed is an equally aristocratic argument, that society ought to treat the profoundly disabled differently than other people. I cannot see how this can be justified on altruistic grounds; the altruistic thing to do seems to be to care more about the larger numbers. The same applies, for example, to dialysis for children with kidney failure; the money spent on dialysis for one child could help a much larger number of children faced with death from simple hunger. It's possible to justify the expense on selfish grounds, by saying, "this is my child, whom I love and value, and I will pay the cost of what I value," but it seems that the true altruist ought to sacrifice such feelings and vote to save the lives of children who can be helped at less expense, through schemes of collective social provision.
This is, to be sure, an exercise in paradox, but I think such complications follow from attempts to oppose morality to self-interest. I don't buy that opposition. For me, the proper argument is not "be moral and give up your self-interest"; the reason to be moral is that it enables me to achieve my self-interest, by enabling me to have a better life.
|
| Monday, September 22, 2008 at 9:46:36 mst
Comment ID: #115
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Joe: you might want to try reading Ayn Rand. She wrote extensively on the connection between disparaging selfishness and lauding self-sacrifice on the one hand, and the reification of weakness and "worship of the zero" on the other. The healthy and the able don't need sacrifices; they are capable of being productive and self-sufficient. Those who turn self-sacrifice for the less able (or the disabled) into the primary moral virtue, however, *need* the weak and disabled in order to have someone to sacrifice for and to be virtuous. That's why I adamantly say that suffering and disability *must* be treated as a tragedy, and something to be avoided and prevented -- not as some kind of twisted opportunity to display one's self-sacrifical virtue.
|
| Monday, September 22, 2008 at 11:04:25 mst
Comment ID: #116
Name: JJ
I find your raesoning perfectly logical given your world view construct. Of course you would want to have the best possible quality of life...while under the premise that this is all there is. On the other hand, there are others whose world view contruct see this lifetime not as a means to an end, but as a means to a beginning. It is most certainly true that if those of us who believe that there is a God, and it turns out to be false, we have then become the most miserable of all beings. I guess that is our risk. Don't forget...we are not the only ones who are taking a risk. You take one also. You cannot irrefutably challenge that there is no God. If you did, you would be saying that you know all...and would in turn claim to be the god you do not believe in.
|
| Monday, September 22, 2008 at 11:28:17 mst
Comment ID: #117
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
JJ said:
"is most certainly true that if those of us who believe that there is a God, and it turns out to be false, we have then become the most miserable of all beings. I guess that is our risk. Don't forget...we are not the only ones who are taking a risk. You take one also. You cannot irrefutably challenge that there is no God. If you did, you would be saying that you know all...and would in turn claim to be the god you do not believe in."
This of course is why you are logically compelled to worship Allah.
Oh, wait, you were ignoring that possibility because you had a different god in mind?
|
| Monday, September 22, 2008 at 12:07:29 mst
Comment ID: #118
Name: JJ
My main viewpoint focuses on world view construct. How you view the world in which we live, and how it came into being, is paramount to what you would logically believe regarding any issue concerning morality, treatment of others, value/quality of life, etc..,
Nice person? Could be. Kind person? Could be. Good hearted person? Sorry...not in the equation.
|
| Monday, September 22, 2008 at 13:38:43 mst
Comment ID: #119
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
JJ: Goodness of heart?
You've admitted that the idea that a fetus is a human being, and has a right to life, is not a conclusion from evidence; it's grounded in your religious faith. So in asking that law and public policy seek to prohibit, restrict, or prevent abortion, you are asking to have law based on religious faith.
There was a time when law was based on faith; when governments were officially Christian, and made obedience to Christian morality a legal duty. And how did that work out?
The government you lived under would insist that you be, not merely a Christian, but a Christian of the specific brand that it favored. If you were accused of being, not just non-Christian, but even the wrong kind of Christian, that mere accusation subjected you to being arrested; to being tortured until you confessed to whatever you were accused of; to being tried before a court that accepted testimony obtained under torture, and that presumed your guilty; and when convicted, to being put to death, by barbarically cruel methods such as burning at the stake. And after you died, your property would go to enrich your torturers, for states routinely confiscated the property of heretics; France under the Bourbons, for example, had a Ministry of Protestant Affairs whose primary function was to manage property seized for Huguenots.
Or if you were lucky, and you were allowed to go into exile into a state that shared your religious views, you were in danger of having that state invaded by armies of a different faith. Large numbers of people died in wars of religion. Many more suffered poverty, or even starved to death, as a result of the economic disruptions caused by those wars, or the economic strain of paying the taxes that supported them. This is your Christian goodness of heart.
Eventually, some people had enough rationality to turn against this murderous behavior in revulsion, and to defend the rights of heretics to pursue their own beliefs. And this led to the idea that religion and irreligion were private choices, not to be imposed by law. That idea was incorporated into the United States Constitution, and made the United States the first Western country where people of minority religions, or no religion, could live in peace, without having to fear their neighbors murdering them. I count that achievement as better evidence of goodness of heart than anything Christianity can lay claim to. The only thing in Christianity that comes close is the role of the Quakers and a few other Protestant sects in beginning the movement to abolish slavery; and they were not simply acting according to what everyone understood Christianity to be. They were putting forth a radically new understanding of Christianity, for which they, too, were treated as heretics and brutally punished. And it's noteworthy, too, that the Quakers in Pennsylvania took the first steps toward a legal system where different religions could live at peace, side by side. I'm willing to credit them with some real goodness of heart; their love for their fellow human beings led to their setting them free, and living at peace with them, not to their murdering and torturing them and seizing their property.
I don't credit people who want to define a fetus as a person, abortion as murder, and women who have abortions with any trace of goodness of heart. By making law and public policy reflect a specific faith, and not reason and factual evidence, they're trying to take away the prospect of peaceful coexistence of different religions, and take us back to tribal and confessional warfare. By their fruits ye shall know them.
|
| Monday, September 22, 2008 at 18:13:33 mst
Comment ID: #120
Name: JJ
In my worldview construct, the conceptus is life. I base that on scientific evidence...not some primitive view of what I think it should be, as those that decided before the day and age of scientfic enlightenment. We now have irrefutable proof that the conceptus is life. Your comments are interesting, yet dodge the real issue. I've been on your turf...perhaps even more knowledgeable than you (I say that humbly) My heart, and yours, is not good in its present state. If you would be honest, you, me, and all others have committed crimes of the heart in thought and word. Very few of us take it to the manifestation level as say for example...a Josef Mengele. But our hearts are not good. Hard to hear? Absolutely. Some gnash their teeth when they hear logic like this. I look forward to the day when we all will stand "speechless."
|
| Monday, September 22, 2008 at 22:21:22 mst
Comment ID: #121
Name: Richard Watts
E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net
Debbie, you said, "And, Mr. Watts, you can say "a fetus is not a person," but I don't accept your authority to say so."
Is there someone's authority you accept to say that a fetus is a person? If so, why?
I am not posing as an authority, I am simply denying, as not credible, the christian assertion that a fetus is a person. The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive. Christian anti-abortionists have asserted, without evidence, that a human person is created at conception, and that a human fetus is a person. If you are going to defend their position on this with logic, it's your move. Where is your evidence that a cluster of human cells just after conception, or later on a human fetus, is a person?
What is a person? What basic, essential characteristic(s) must be present for something to be a "person"? What category of things is the concept "person" in? What makes a person different from all other things -- Why isn't a dog, a cat, a tree, a rock, or a piece of human skin containing unique human DNA, a "person"? What makes your aquaintances, who are persons, essentially different from animals, trees, rocks and human body parts? Why is it murder to kill a human, but not murder to kill a mouse? Obviously, humans are different from all other animals. What is that difference?
JJ, regarding your quote from the bible "The heart is desperately wicked, and deceitful above all things." Whose heart? Speak for yourself. Regarding your comment #116; where is your evidence that there is an afterlife, or a god? You offer only a logical fallacy: the Appeal to Ignorance ("You cannot irrefutably challenge that there is no God.")
"I look forward to the day when we all will stand 'speechless.' "
You mean just before most of mankind will (you believe) be hurled into a lake of fire? So much for Christianity's benevolence and concern for human *persons*.
|
| Monday, September 22, 2008 at 22:37:51 mst
Comment ID: #122
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
JJ also ignored my simple refutation of his attempt at bringing out Pascal's Wager, which has got to be the most ridiculously inadequate argument for the existence of god that I have ever seen. (And it has stiff competition for that honor.)
Actually it's an attempt to argue for the utility of believing (or perhaps just pretending to believe) in god, not for the actual existence of god, but hey, that's just a minor detail that oh by the way also and separately succeeds in sinking it.
The fact that any christian would pull this argument out and expect it to be taken seriously is evidence that christianity causes brain damage.
|
| Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 5:41:24 mst
Comment ID: #123
Name: JJ
Richard... it gets back to your world view construct. It is perfectly logical for you to believe as you do. I would expect no other reasonable logical conclusion. As far as your comment regarding the wickedness of the human heart, of course it offends you, as it is expected to. As far as benevolence goes, should it go both ways? Or are you exempt because you don't believe. I perfectly understand your frustration. "Professing themselves to be wise...they become fools."
Steve...you prove my point exactly. Under the guise of open-mindedness, you choose to close your mind to faith in a God that claim exclusiveness. Brain damage? You mean like a small-necked clam trying to understand quantum physics? You made me laugh...thanks for that anyway.
|
| Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 6:36:23 mst
Comment ID: #124
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
And JJ, you still haven't actually responded to my direct criticisms (now numbering two) of your Pascal's Wager argument--either you are (properly) ashamed to have brought it up, or you're simply reading from the Josh McDowell playbook. (But wait, he's a (gasp!) protestant.)
Basically, you'd have to show that (to answer my first counterargument) Pascal's Wager cannot be used as an argument for believing in some other, arbitrarily chosen deity, and (to answer my second one) demonstrate that it's not in fact just a purely utilitarian, cynical argument for believing there is a god, rather than an actual proof that there is a god.
(Actually it's just a part of the bigger pattern--the most important attribute under a religion, is your belief in the religion. Not how you act, how well you reason, how much integrity you have, your sense of justice, or honesty OR EVEN how much you are willing to sacrifice yourself--but your belief in the religion, and your work to cause others to believe in it. Sounds like a recipe for a self-propagating delusion.)
Your response to my previous calling you out on this was to insult me; of course you will respond that I insulted you first, but that is mistaken--you insulted everyone here by bringing out such an insult to our intelligence in the first place.
|
| Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 7:07:05 mst
Comment ID: #125
Name: JJ
There is nothing I can say that will change or influence a mind that is already made up....as mine once was. I purposely did not insult anyone, but I do understand it is par for the course. As far as Josh McDowell, I can't say that I am familiar with his work. I have heard the name. The basic premise of the debate is the reason why some see disabled children as a burden, and some see them as a gift. My conclusion, which you have yet to address, is the logical conclusion that goes with one's selected world view construct. I am not criticizing you or anyone else that holds the views they do. If in fact you do see humans as a product of primordial ooze, then it would only naturally and consistently coincide with the fact that a human with a disability would be considered less than fully human. You might say...they got a raw deal. Would I say that? No, not with my world view construct. I would say that they do have value. Not only do they have value, they give value. Is it a value that everyone understands or wants? Obviously no. As far as intelligence and insults go, that's subjective. Do I think you insulted me as you stated? No, not really. Just as the author is brutally honest, which I honestly appreciate, I also am brutally honest in the fact that it just takes alot more faith for me to believe in an earth that came into existence by chance, over an earth that has been designed and functions as it does. That just my viewpoint after a pretty thorough examination of the facts and evidence. That points to the way we view not only people with disabilities, but how we treat everyone. I'm just kind of curious on this one...maybe you can help me. Let's just turn the table a little bit. What if a candidate for President/Vice President of a different party was in the same situation as the S Palin and her position on children with disablities. How would the debate go? Honest question, no agenda. Just curious? What do you think?
|
| Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 8:22:20 mst
Comment ID: #126
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Back at #120, JJ asserts as an irrefutable fact something that is not accepted as a fact in this discussion, offering no reasons for agreement, and apparently expecting his readers to believe it on the authority of his mere assertion. He then offers some out and out appeals to emotion whose connection to the issue is not very clear. And he ends with what looks like a veiled threat, with that line about gnashing of teethâ€"I take it to be an allusion to the passages about Hell in the Revelation of St. John, and thus a hint that we will all be tortured for disagreeing with him. I think this is past the point of reasoned argument, and so I will simply say that JJ is wrong and contemptible.
|
| Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 9:01:30 mst
Comment ID: #127
Name: JJ
William, you can and will come to your own conclusions. I am not trying to get you to believe anything. You have that covered. On what basis do you judge me as wrong and contemptible? Is it based upon your own law that governs you and your universe, or another?
|
| Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 10:34:34 mst
Comment ID: #128
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
JJ:
I am not going to discuss "wrong." I have addressed this before, and you have uniformly responded by saying that my statements make sense as a reflection of my worldview, but that you have a different worldview. It thus appears that you do not consider this issue subject to rational resolution, and there is no point in further discussion with someone who is not interested in rational resolution.
As for "contemptible," what I just said is the primary ground for the contempt; I have no respect for people who attempt to discuss ideas without regard for rationality. But your allusive, hinting style, with its veiled threats, its open condescension, and the arrogance that gives rise to both, strikes me as evidence of bad character in its own right.
|
| Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 10:49:57 mst
Comment ID: #129
Name: JJ
So are you saying that if I disagree with you than I am wrong? (Is this what you mean by rational resolution?)I thought that's what you said about me. What is the overall purpose or goal of a topic like this? Is it to try and change the minds of people who choose to bring a child with a known disabilty into the world? Is it to get them to do the "right" thing as far as you are concerned? Arrogance is interesting term, and most remarkably in this context. Do you dismiss me on the basis that you assume that I do not have the intellectual horsepower to debate in what you think is an intelligent manner? Would that in turn be considered arrrogant or would that be considered right because you are the one that thought it? Sounds like at least your consistent. Value is determined in your world by what you consider to be your level of worthiness. Sorry, I don't measure up....as I'm sure in your world not many do. Arrogance? Interesting.
|
| Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 11:16:10 mst
Comment ID: #130
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
JJ: "Worldviews" require reasoned justification and are subject to rational critique. They're not just the kind of "arbitrary starting points" that you seem to want to treat them as. In reason, you don't get to just assert a "worldview" and not have to back it up with logic and evidence. We can and do, relying on the evidence of the senses (none of which supports the existence of your deity). If you want to reject reason, be our guest -- but then don't be surprised when your "worldview" is dismissed as unscientific, irrational, and superstitious.
|
| Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 12:22:10 mst
Comment ID: #131
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
JJ: I wasn't the one who brought up this topic; your question about that should go to Diana, if she has the patience to reply to you.
As to "if I disagree with you then I am wrong," that is not at all what I said. But if you don't offer a rational justification for your disagreement, then that fairly strongly indicates that you are wrong. I have, in previous comments, attempted to offer statements of my reasons for disagreeing with you; you have, as Tony points out, responded by saying, "I have a different worldview," as if that were some sort of intellectual trump card. It's not a question of intellectual ability; it's a question of intellectual method. I respect people whose intellectual method is rational discourse, because I consider rationality a virtue; I do not respect people whose intellectual method is faith, appeal to authority, or proof by blatant assertion, and the latter is what I see from you. People's ethical choices, including the choice to be rational or not, are a valid measure of worthiness.
|
| Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 13:12:47 mst
Comment ID: #132
Name: Richard Watts
E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net
JJ, you said: "William, you can and will come to your own conclusions. I am not trying to get you to believe anything. You have that covered. On what basis do you judge me as wrong and contemptible? Is it based upon your own law that governs you and your universe, or another?"
On the basis of what you have put forward here in various ways, you have no claim to knowledge of any kind, nor even any reason to hold any beliefs. You have nothing on which to base any assertions, and no claim to "logic". You have no basis to question anyone else's ideas. If it is your assumption that whatever is within "your own law" cannot be valid knowledge, then if you don't know anything for sure, you can observe your *own* ignorance through introspection. But if you claim one can't know anything for sure, then that claim applies to you -- in which case you certainly can't know that others don't possess rock-solid-certain, objective knowledge regarding facts of which you are ignorant. You attempt to ascribe my position to my emotions. In regard to all of the above -- again, speak for yourself.
"Professing themselves to be wise...they become fools."
Is your point that man cannot be wise? If so, on what basis do you deem anyone to be foolish? On the basis of your own foolish opinion? Speak for yourself.
"As far as benevolence goes, should it go both ways? Or are you exempt because you don't believe."
I don't understand your question -- please elaborate.
Regarding your claim that the human heart is wicked, and my response, it makes no difference to the validity or non-validity of your comments, or mine, whether or not I am offended. If man's "heart" is necessarily wicked, then man has no choice but to be wicked. If man had no choice, then there would be no issue of morality or immorality -- and there could be no such thing as wickedness. But man does have free will, and is not forced to be wicked. It is only your own choices that you can control, and therefore predict -- not the choices of others. It is your own mind that you know best. You can't speak for others and predict that they will necessarily choose a certain way -- so if you think that *your* heart "is desperately wicked, and deceitful above all things", and you want to say so, speak for yourself.
Your position throughout the discussion seems to be that there is no such thing as objective knowledge of facts that are independent of anyone's opinions, nor any such thing as choices that are right or wrong independently of anyone's opinion of what constitute right and wrong -- and that therefore, anyone who is dead certain that his view is correct and yours mistaken, or that his values are right and yours wrong, *oppresses* you with his certainty, and with his condemnation, by putting his own views above yours. Would you say this is the case?
|
| Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 17:53:55 mst
Comment ID: #133
Name: JJ
I have heard your viewpoint many times. No matter what I answer, or what I believe to be historical, objective fact, it will be noted as intellectual suicide. Let me ask you this question. What really is the root behind this calling out the worship of retardation? I can't really determine if it is an honest intellectual viewpoint or fundamentally political. Could it be a combination of both? I have a child with a disbility and I have been subjected to not only compassion and warmth, but also to contempt and disdain. Do we deserve either? I would say no. But that doesn't change the fact we get both. I've lost some friends, and I've gained a few also. All that I have been subjected to has had nothing to do with the senses...but it is still very real and absolutely exists. It would be interesting if we were neighbors. How do you think we would approach each other on a strictly ethical basis? How would our worth be determined?
|
| Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 21:03:54 mst
Comment ID: #134
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
JJ asked: "What if a candidate for President/Vice President of a different party was in the same situation as the S Palin and her position on children with disablities. How would the debate go? Honest question, no agenda. Just curious? What do you think?"
The discussion would be the same, of course -- or perhaps, even more critical. The left isn't exactly well thought-of among the typical Noodlefood readership. Speaking personally, the one thing I could imagine that would be worse than a serious religious-right candidate in America would be someone with the same views, but on the *left*.
|
| Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 21:38:39 mst
Comment ID: #135
Name: OistPostGrad
E-mail: ttcrunch(at)lycos.net
"Speaking personally, the one thing I could imagine that would be worse than a serious religious-right candidate in America would be someone with the same views, but on the *left*."
I agree. If someone on the Left had a child with Down Syndrome deliberately and knowing in advance, it would be done for the *explicit* purpose of the worship of disability. There would be no religion to cloud the issue. It would be an even uglier form of altruism.
|
| Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 4:28:41 mst
Comment ID: #136
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
OistPostGrad: That's not what I meant. I meant specifically a hard-core religious left candidate advocating the same position. I do not agree that it would be an uglier form of altruism if no religion were involved.
|
| Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 12:12:48 mst
Comment ID: #137
Name: JJ
OistPostGrad: That's not what I meant. I meant specifically a hard-core religious left candidate advocating the same position. I do not agree that it would be an uglier form of altruism if no religion were involved.
Why wouldn't it be? It seems to me that if there were no underlying intents to self-sacrifice under the veil of religion it would be a pure, unadulterated attempt to totally throw your life away on a worthless hunk of burdensome humanity. Maybe I'm not understanding the logic here, but that is what I would assume taking this to its logical conclusion. What am I missing?
|
| Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 20:48:16 mst
Comment ID: #138
Name: Richard Watts
E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net
JJ,
What you are missing is that any self-sacrifice, with or without the "veil of religion", and with or without the pretense that sacrifice is for someone's benefit, is pure, unadulterated throwing your life away.
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 5:56:20 mst
Comment ID: #139
Name: JJ
And what should be the response of someone who has perhaps been spared by an act of self-sacrifice? For example, I recently read the story of the soldier who covered a grenade with his body in order to spare those around him. Should the survivors call him an idiot for literally throwing his life away, or should they consider honoring him since they become the beneficiaries of his pure, unadulterated act. Just curious...how do you think you would you respond to something like this if this happened to you?
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 10:46:52 mst
Comment ID: #140
Name: AH
The comments by Penny Green, and others like her, accusing those who favor the right to abortion as advocating (or sympathetic to) eugenics are silly, if not outright dishonest. Eugenics is (allegedly) about improving the human race, i.e. the collective, and goes hand-in-hand with government planned and *enforced* abortions. The right to abortion is about the freedom of the *individual* to decide and act on her own rational self-interest, and the government keeping out of her way. The right to abortion never legally *has* to be exercized; any pregnant woman should be legally free to *choose* whether to obtain an abortion or not, whether or not the fetus has a congenital disability. Diana's point is that, other things being equal, it is in the rational self-interest of a woman pregnant with a fetus afflicted with DS to obtain an abortion. Her point is not that the woman should legally be *required* to do so, and certainly not for the sake of the alleged improvement of the human race.
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 23:16:47 mst
Comment ID: #141
Name: Nicole
E-mail: Moonbeam390(at)yahoo.com
Diana, the apparent fervent anger in your blog makes me wonder why you are so angry with so little experience with people with Down's. Actually, in my almost 30 years as an RN, I have asked mothers about their Down's children, and not one has ever said that they would give them up if they could. Every Down's child and adult I have known has been delightful, cheerful and happy to be with others. There are many people with higher IQ's who are desperately angry or depressed. When you said to someone commenting on your blog that " you will not" say such & such, I could almost hear you stomp your feet. Has it occurred to you that that young man working at the movie theater, who you pitied, may have a happier more fulfilling life than you do? Think of what he's accomplished,in spite of the scorn from others that he's had to endure. Another long-lasting effect of abortion, for many women is a lingering regret...for the rest of their lives. Was the test in error?
|
| Friday, September 26, 2008 at 4:40:16 mst
Comment ID: #142
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Nicole: so what are you trying to say? That people with "higher IQs" might have been happier and better off if they had been born with a severe mental disability instead? If so, then -- well, thanks for the unsolicited psychological confession. As someone who actually finds his ability to understand and deal effectively with the world to be a source of joy, I find it quite illuminating.
Like I said earlier in the comments: disability is a *tragedy*, not some kind of sick value to be pined after ("I could be so much happier if only I didn't have such a high IQ, and my brain were damaged instead!"). True joy in life comes from *understanding* yourself and the world around you, and how to use that knowledge to act effectively to achieve your values.
|
| Friday, September 26, 2008 at 6:07:27 mst
Comment ID: #143
Name: Ste e D'Ippolito
Tony, you beat me to it. It does seem like some people would rather be "fat dumb and happy." (Well, okay, the "fat" part is irrelevant and possibly counter-factual here but it's part of the phrase.)
If there are so many intelligent people who are desperately unhappy, perhaps it is because they are in a millieu that implicitly and often explicitly condemns them for their intelligence--their very being. (God help the "nerd" in middle and high school. Oh, wait, there is no god. Well, that narrows it down....)
Nicole, do you realize how freaking *scary* your statement is to people who *enjoy* life as rational, curious beings?
|
| Friday, September 26, 2008 at 6:48:04 mst
Comment ID: #144
Name: JJ
As someone who actually finds his ability to understand and deal effectively with the world to be a source of joy, I find it quite illuminating.
Okay...so how do you understand and deal effectively with a fellow human who chooses to bring a child into the world? Do you treat them with respect? Do you ignore them? Civil to their face, laugh behind their back?What would be considered an intelligent understanding and intelligent effectiveness.
|
| Friday, September 26, 2008 at 8:48:31 mst
Comment ID: #145
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
JJ: Of course I treat people who choose to bring a child into the world with respect (assuming they do it responsibly, of course). It's a shame that you and your fellows don't seem to be willing to offer me the same courtesy.
|
| Friday, September 26, 2008 at 13:22:13 mst
Comment ID: #146
Name: Nicole
E-mail: Moonbeam390(at)yahoo.com
Tony & Steve, so 2+2=5? You scanned my words and didn't read them. I never said that most people with high IQ are unhappy. I said that I've known many. And yes, they have been discriminated against! Does being bullied make you a bully? I've also known many people who live their lives reading or studying and not really getting to know their fellow man. What so many of the mostly parents of Down's children & adults have been trying to tell you, is Down's doesn't necessarily mean "severe mental retardation" and many are capable of the "true joy" in life that comes from understanding themselves and the world around them and how to use that knowledge to act effectively to achieve their values.( Thank you, Tony)
I do have a prejudice, and it's against those who are cruel and bully others. Our society has a reputation in much of the world for not taking care of our old, sick, disabled. When I was 23 and in the Congo, I was astonished to see how the people deep in the jungle incorporated their mentally ill and retarded into their everyday lives. Our society doesn't want to see these people...do you?
|
| Friday, September 26, 2008 at 14:08:11 mst
Comment ID: #147
Name: JJ
Okay Tony....I assume you know I meant child with a disabilty. So how do you treat a person who brings a child with a disablity into the world and is not responsible, as you define responsiblity. If we were neighbors, would you let me borrow your lawnmower if mine broke down? Would you use mine if yours broke down? Would you consider me and my disabled child worth knowing? Would you lecture me and let me know that you think I, and my disabled child, are societal mistakes? Would you allow me to help you if you needed help?
|
| Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 7:11:51 mst
Comment ID: #148
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Nicole: I read your words quite carefully, thank you very much. If you didn't intend the implication that I challenged, then why did you bring up the true but utterly irrelevant point that some people with high IQs may not be happy? Achieving true happiness depends on *both* the ability, and the commitment, to using one's mind virtuously to achieve values in life. The fact that happiness doesn't come automatically for smart people has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand (which is people with severe mental handicaps).
The rest of your post is similarly irrelevant. You talk about taking care of the old, sick, and disabled, when what *we* are talking about is preventing people from being congenitally disabled in the *first* place. You equivocate between an actually existing human being with a disability, and a pre-human smear of protoplasm that isn't even remotely a person yet. The logic of your stated position is that you want to let that smear develop into an actual human being who will be profoundly disabled, so that you can then posture about your "compassion" and caring for him. I think that's vicious.
Barring unusual circumstances, a woman has a choice about which pregnancy she will bring to term, and which will thus create an *actual* human being. What I am advocating is that if she has the choice, she should choose to bring to term a pregnancy that will bear a healthy child, instead of one that will create a profoundly disabled child. The choice is between a disabled person on the one hand, and the healthy but different person who could be in their place on the other. And I don't think that someone who would opt for the first of those choices has any business pretending that their motive in doing so is compassion or caring. It's not.
|
| Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 7:35:57 mst
Comment ID: #149
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
JJ wrote: "Okay Tony....I assume you know I meant child with a disabilty."
No, actually, I did not. I'm not a mind-reader. If you want to be understood, then you might want to make an effort to express yourself clearly and unambiguously.
To answer your questions: that depends. As a general rule, if you were irresponsible and persisted in being irresponsible, then no, I wouldn't make any effort to associate with or help you. If for example you deliberately pontificated on the religious "virtuousness" of the vicious choice to bring a disabled child into the world *when you had and eschewed the alternative choice to have a healthy child*, and if you persistend in defending that choice and demanding that your fellow men help you with the burdens that fell on you as a result, then I would shun you.
But on the other hand, let's say that we lived in the kind of vicious society advocated by some of the religious nutjobs that Diana has been posting about recently. Suppose aborting a first-trimester fetus with a severe congenital disability were illegal, and you were a neighbor who was a good person, but had forced to bear that child against your will. In that case, I would not only not shun you, but would feel genuine compassion for your situation, and be very inclined to help, if and to the extent that I could. That's because I believe in the virtue of justice -- in rewarding and embracing the good, and eschewing the wicked.
"Would you consider me and my disabled child worth knowing? Would you lecture me and let me know that you think I, and my disabled child, are societal mistakes? Would you allow me to help you if you needed help?"
I wouldn't hold any of this against the disabled child himself; none of it would have been his fault. And your use of the phrase "societal mistake" is ludicrous in this context. I'm a proponent of individualism, not collectivism; I care about individuals first, not "society." And no, I wouldn't "lecture" you. Life's too short to waste time on that kind of thing.
Does that answer your questions?
|
| Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 13:54:03 mst
Comment ID: #150
Name: JJ
Yes...except one. ( And that leads to maybe a couple more) Would you allow me to help you if you needed help, knowing that I had brought a child with a disability into the world when I could have made the choice to terminate? Or would you shun even my help in perhaps your neediest moment because I had chosen to make a poor decision? Is tolerance a virtue in your world? I'm just honestly trying to understand here. I am not criticizing you for believing what you believe, I'm just trying to come to a better understanding of how you see things the way you do. My child has a disbility and I don't demand anyone to help me with my child. Like I said earlier, I have lost some friends. On the other hand, I do have some people that have chosen to help me. Not because I demand it, but because they choose to. These people have communicated to me that they like to help and they find great satisfaction in working with my child. They consistently talk about the innocence, transparency, and purity that my child shows. I don't know, maybe it is because they feel fed-up with some of the dishonest, deceit, and half-truth dealings they get from a large portion of society. They seem to value not only what they can do for my child, but what he gives to them in those earlier mentioned traits. Just to carify a little further...I honestly was not very happy when my child was born and I found out about the disability. I did not know beforehand. We did not have a test. But I will say that I have really grown to love my child in a way that I really can't explain. Is it difficult? Yes...at times. But I guess I focus more now on the positive things than the negative. Just trying to see your point of view a little clearer...... that's all.
|
| Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 14:53:55 mst
Comment ID: #151
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
JJ, to answer your questions: No, Yes, and No -- assuming that you are not talking about yourself here, but about the first kind of person that I described in my previous response. Certainly from your description, you're not one of those people. You didn't know beforehand, and had no choice in the matter. Even if one has warning early in the pregnancy (before an actual child yet exists), I would argue that there can be valid reasons to have a disabled child anyway (for example, a severe fertility problem that might trying again unlikely to be successful).
But most people faced with this choice don't have to choose between having a disabled child and surrendering the value of parenthood altogether. They can try again -- before it's too late, and the fetus develops from being a pre-human to being an *actual person*. Once that happens (especially after birth), it changes everything.
|
| Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 17:04:24 mst
Comment ID: #152
Name: Nicole
E-mail: moonbeam390(at)yahoo.com
Tony, simply put...why do you keep writing 'severe mental handicap' and 'profound mental disability' when the subject was initially Trig, Sarah Palin's child. You are still not reading & understanding the words. Do you, personally know the extent of Trig's intelligence, especially since that can't be determined for many years? I don't think you or Diana with her vast study of 1, has seen a severely mentally impaired child. But, as sensitive as you are to any perceived insult, that will only make you write a more scathing "put-down" as virtuous and full of joy as you are.
I never said that I was compassionate. Did you infer that from what I wrote about others? Do you perceive that JJ is bending over backwards to be non-confrontational? - actually quite a good tactic to use with you. You are so wrapped up in expounding on intelligence... what are your values? What do you achieve in life with this IQ? What have you achieved for the world in general? You've already expounded on who you would help or talk to, & who you would shun, I think you said. Rather like a dictator. Did you really read what JJ wrote about her child and the beauty therein?
|
| Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 17:52:08 mst
Comment ID: #153
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Nicole: this thread is 152 posts long, and has covered a lot of ground beyond a narrow focus on Sarah Palin's son. Some of us have, in response to questions, been trying to explain a principle here: that disability is a tragedy, and not something to be valued. I can't say that I agree with you that Down's Syndrome "isn't all that bad" a disability -- but if you think that, then take the case of a congenital disability that you are willing to concede is severe or profound. If you want to address the issue in principle (as JJ is at least trying to do), then I'll respond further. Otherwise, I really don't see any point to doing so.
|
| Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 18:41:50 mst
Comment ID: #154
Name: Nicole
E-mail: moonbeam390(at)yahoo.com
Tony, you've misquoted me.(But, de-sensitized your words) I never said that Down's Syndrome "isn't all that bad" , it depends on the child. I wanted you to 'listen' to JJ's written word. This is something I notice has been done alot in these posts. The previous profound, heart-felt posts of those with disabled children seem to be totally ignored by those trying to prove their point, with no earthly experience in these matters. My belief? Christians don't value disability, they value children. Goodnight.
|
| Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 19:52:38 mst
Comment ID: #155
Name: JJ
I find it interesting that you do not think tolerance is a virtue. I guess to a certain degree we are all intolerant when it comes to certain issues. For example, I am not tolerant if someone chooses to make fun of my child and his disability, although I have bitten my tongue. I really don't know how to respond to the mockery. (I am not saying you are doing that) I wish I knew the best response. What would be considered an understanding and respectable response to you, considering the way you feel about adults who bring knowingly disabled children into the world? What could I say to you that could perhaps promote civilty and a possibilty of friendship/relationship? Is it past the point of that possibility once the child is brought into the world or is there a response that could trigger in you a different outlook or perspective? Again, I am not criticizing you. I simply strive to live at peace with everyone and I would love to know if there is a way I could more effectively do that. I don't want to be angry at the people who make fun of me or my child. I recognize that some may never want to travel the route of relationsip with someone like me and my son, but what would help make them at least consider? (As a disclaimer...you know I did not knowingly bring a child into the world with a disability, but I do believe if given the choice and I would have known, I would not have terminated...so I guess in that way it makes me just as culpable)
|
| Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 22:17:00 mst
Comment ID: #156
Name: Nicole
E-mail: Moonbeam390(at)yahoo.com
Diana Hsieh , I stumbled upon your blog while, strangely enough, researching Islam & retarded children. The Blog is fascinating. I'm sure you meant it to be a provocative title, which it proved to be. It has caused me to research Objectivism, while I read the posts. But, did you mean to heap added guilt and shame upon parents, especially women who have disabled children not by choice? Did you mean it to be cruel. As the posts are written, many by young men who spend their lives computer programming, and never come near these children, do they have any idea of the anguish of the women & men who love the little retarded often deformed, children that they bore. They blame themselves endlessly, already, for what it was that they might have done to cause the child such problems. If you ever visit a neonatal intensive care you can hear the women ask, "what did I do?" Over & over. Science says that most teratogenically affected babies are miscarried. Many deformaties are not picked up in tests.
I read that Ayn Rand wrote of morals & ethics as it relates to living with other people, what did she say about cruelty?
|
| Sunday, September 28, 2008 at 6:17:08 mst
Comment ID: #157
Name: Sergio Oliveira Junior
E-mail: sergio.oliveira.jr(at)gmail.com
Another interesting point that I am not sure it was considered here is:
It is fine for you for not wanting a baby. Why can't you have the baby you don't want, probably a result of your reckless sex and lack of responsibility and give it up for adoption?
There are many ways nowadays to avoid pregnancy. Condom, pills and day-after pills. People should not make sex without these precautions the same way they should not drink and drive. This is serious stuff...
|
| Sunday, September 28, 2008 at 6:24:48 mst
Comment ID: #158
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Nicole: that wasn't intended to be a direct quote, but it WAS the gist of your remarks. I'm sorry that you do not appear to be willing to be honest enought to admit that. Of course there is a range of different possible levels of severity for most disabilities, including congenital ones that can be predicted by modern science. Assessing those risks is part of the responsible process of judgement that a potential mother has to go through in dealing with this issue.
So let's do a little assessing of those risks. I maintain that Down's Syndrome is a condition that involves serious mental impairment, except in a small and atypical minority of cases. For those who are interested, here are a couple of references on the subject:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/812650wp03168846/
http://www.down-syndrome.org:80/information/social/overview/?page=4
The first study suggests that over half of Down's Syndrome sufferers fall into the category of being "severely" or "profoundly" retarded, with only about 2% even reaching the level of "borderline intelligence." I didn't just pull the words that you challenged out of my backside; they were taken directly from that reference. The statistics in the second are even more disturbing. More than half of DS sufferers cannot even perform simple self-care tasks like washing their own hair, preparing simple food, telling time or handling money.
As for the claim that Christians value children, not disability, I will say it again: pre-human smears of protoplasm are not children. As Richard Bramwell has explained in some detail on another thread, a first trimester fetus isn't even remotely human yet. Insisting on bringing a mentally disabled person into the world *because* unscientific and religious irrationality tells you to ignore the obvious and profound difference between a pre-human mass of cells and an *actual* human child, is no virtue. And doing so under cover of proclaiming the virtue of caring for the mentally disabled, or trying to whitewash the difference between serious mental disability and normal human functioning, represents -- as Diana said -- the worship of retardation.
|
| Sunday, September 28, 2008 at 7:09:27 mst
Comment ID: #159
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
JJ: I would certainly condemn anyone who *mocked* a disabled child, or those who care for them. It takes a particularly insensitive kind of jerk to do something like that. The tragedy of a severe disability is nothing to be made fun of, and I would extend the same intolerance to those who've shown it to you that you describe feeling.
I think I understand the motive and perspective from which you (as the parent of a disabled child) are asking the kinds of questions that you are. Given the mockery and hostility that you've described experiencing, that is understandable. I hope I can help to make it clear that disdain or hostility toward the disabled, or their caregivers, is *not* what is behind my remarks (nor, I am sure, Diana's). What is behind those remarks is revulsion for the attitude that Diana described: the glorification of self-sacrifice for the disabled as a primary moral virtue. As I observed in post #115 ( http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/09/worship-of-retardation.shtml#115 ), that kind of moral leech *needs* to espouse ideas that create and prolong the suffering of others, in order to be able to feel virtuous. That kind of person would regard a society of healthy people as a threat to their moral status and standing.
If you and other Christians shrink from and are shocked by that idea, and want to say "that does not represent what we feel or think," then *good*. But with all due respect, I think you should be equally willing to respond that way when some of your fellow Christians espouse ideas that amount to the same thing -- because some of them *do*. And what I think Diana is (and certainly I am) trying to say is that this idea is inherent in the worship of sacrifice that permeates, not only Christianity, but many other religions and ideologies as well. I think that a truly humane perspective is one that treates cases of suffering and disability as tragedies to be prevented, and not as sick opportunities to "ennoble oneself" through self-sacrifice (as the author of the piece that Diana linked seems to be suggesting).
|
| Sunday, September 28, 2008 at 7:37:33 mst
Comment ID: #160
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Sergio,
Of course a responsible person who is engaged in sexual activity, and does not want children, will take precautions against pregnancy. But there is no 100% effective method of contraception; there are even cases of pregnancy after vasectomy or after tubal ligation. Birth control pills have a failure rate, and barrier methods a somewhat higher one. When these failures occur, abortion provides a backup. Demanding that a woman who has conscientiously tried to avoid pregnancy, and suffered an accidental failure, suffer the disruption of her life of carrying the pregnancy to term is totally distorting the concept of responsibility, by making an unchosen accident a source of legal obligations.
There is also, of course, the case of women who become pregnant as a result of rape. They never chose to become pregnant at all, or even to take the risk; would you inflict pregnancy on them?
Beyond these two, there are women who engage in sexual acts with the intention of becoming pregnant, and who are happy at the prospect of having childrenâ€"but whose pregnancies are leading to the birth of genetically or developmentally abnormal children who will not be able to become functional adults, and whose care will consume much more money, effort, time, and emotional devotion than the care of a normal child. Putting such a child up for adoption is an exercise in futility; the demand for, say, profoundly retarded adoptive children is close enough to zero for all practical purposes.
Restricting abortion in any of these cases because you disapprove of "reckless sex and lack of responsibility" is unjust. I have noticed that people who argue against abortion seem always to focus on these cases, presumably because they want to make abortion appear as a discreditable act. This is exactly similar to the process Ayn Rand noted, where people who want to argue against freedom of speech and publication focus on Nazi propagandists, or pornographers, or other people who are generally disapproved of.
Even supposing that it were legitimate to make an exception in this case, do you want to enforce the exception by having women interrogated when they seek abortions, to find out if they have been engaging in regular unprotected sex? Do you want them to have to document that they are taking proper precautions? Are you going to forbid any woman who isn't willing to jump through bureaucratic hoops to abort? Abortion is a hard enough choice without adding all that administrative indignity onto it.
And, ultimately, the principle is that the pregnant woman is the one who, more than anyone else, bears the costs of her own pregnancy. It's her choice whether she finds those costs acceptable or not. Even if you disapprove of her sexual conduct, she may still face costs that she finds unacceptable, and she should have the choice to avoid them; neither you, nor society in general, has any right to demand that she prove her worthiness by demonstrating a course of behavior your approve of, before exercising that right.
Note, too, that pregnancies that result from unprotected sex occur predominantly in girls in their teens, who are less likely to fully grasp the consequences of their actions, and who legally bear less responsibility for them. Taking the punitive attitude of "she was irresponsible and has to be made to pay the price" is particularly inappropriate for someone who is still learning to be an adult.
|
| Sunday, September 28, 2008 at 8:04:16 mst
Comment ID: #161
Name: JJ
I think I undertsand what you are saying and I appreciate the honesty. I guess part of the problem I have is that although I may have at first considered the birth of my child a tragedy that could have been prevented (Ex...Had we known and then chosen to terminate) I honestly do not see it that way anymore. I went through all the emotions of a drastic life change and I remember saying, "Life was just not supposed to work out like this for me." But as the years have gone by, and I have settled into a new *normal*, I have changed in my perspective. I don't know why and I can't explain it adequately, but there is something about helping my child, and other children with disabilities, that gives me a sense that I am doing something selfless and worthwhile. Maybe it is because my whole life my entire focus was me, me, me. I hated that about myself. I had a hard time caring/listening to others. As I'm sure you can summize, I wasn't a very good friend. In the few times I did try to listen or be a friend, it was because the person I was trying to be friends with, could offer me something I wanted. I can see your point...I think. I don't think it is right for a person to feel like nobility because they have a child with a disability, nor would the intended purpose be healthy. There are just too many other things that could go along with the territory, that might take you out of the arena of the sane. It just seems most of the people I know, who have children with disabilities, don't feel or think that way. Most of them have a brokeness of life that is not spoken, but nevertheless felt. I think I had that brokeness also, but now I am kind of repaired. Of course I'm not put back together the same way I was, but I can function and I do find joy in life. I don't think the people I know admire themselves, or think others should admire them, for having a child with a disability. I don't like it when people say the canned line.... that God only gives these children to special people. I was not special before I had this child. I guess from a faith perspective, (And as you know I am a Christian) I would say that God chose to give plain, ordinary, formerly selfish me, a special child. If I am special, it is because my child has made me special. That's just my view. Many things have changed about me since the birth of my child. Although I still don't like some things about myself, I do like the way I am with my child and other children with disabilites. Do I consider myself noble? Have a moved outside the realm of always thinking about what's best for me? I have had too..... And I have also found out, it's an okay place to be.
|
| Sunday, September 28, 2008 at 12:10:27 mst
Comment ID: #162
Name: Nicole
E-mail: moonbeam390(at)yahoo.com
JJ, beautifully said.
|
| Saturday, October 4, 2008 at 23:35:50 mst
Comment ID: #163
Name: Prolife
First of all, this blog made me really sad. I view all life as valuable- even the lives of the disabled, the unborn, the "retarded," the elderly, the undesirable. ALL lives. I also am a Christian, and that's why I have that view. I believe in God, and I believe that God created each and every life, both yours and mine. And we are each beloved by Him, no matter what our disabilities are. And so I am sad because of abortion- because unborn babies are seen as burdens rather than blessings and as hardships rather than joys.
I am very "pro-life," and I am opposed to abortion for that reason. I don't think people realize the blessing that can be given them through the life of a disabled child. For one thing, there is a beautiful innocence with Down's children/adults. They are very loving. How can we not make room for love in our lives? They are not concerned with things like fashion or popularity or wealth. They are affectionate, sweet-natured, and happy souls. They are not greedy or competitive or deceitful or petty. And many parents of such children have found their lives blessed, touched, and changed as a result of raising a Down's child.
It's true that they are "burdensome" as far as time and money. So, it's true that there are sacrifices to be made in raising them, but there are sacrifices made in raising any child. And there are many things in life that may feel "burdensome." You said: "Such people are not motivated by a soft heart. If they were, they would adamantly defend abortion as a moral means of freeing parents from the prospect of endless sacrifice to a retarded child."
But I would say that sacrifice is not a bad thing. Sacrifice builds character. Sacrifice humbles and strengthens us. To sacrifice, we put someone else's needs above our own. We let go of some of our wants. Sacrifice is not a bad thing. It is actually a good thing because of the character it causes in us when we sacrifice. The opposite of sacrifice is self-indulgence. Sacrifice is not easy at all, but in the end, there are rewards for it. If people did not make sacrifices in this world, it would be an ugly, ugly world... which in many ways it is an ugly world... maybe because we don't sacrifice for others. We think first and foremost of our own selves.
The reason I am anti-abortion is because I believe that every unborn child is a living, breathing human being. And when a fetus is aborted, a life has been stopped. IF no abortion takes place, a life WILL be born. My great-grandmother actually tried to abort her daughter (my grandma) but failed. If she had succeeded, I would not have been born because my grandma wouldn't have been born or my mother. My sister, and all my aunts and cousins and their kids and so on... we'd all not exist. Abortion ends the chance of a baby's life and the lives of all of that babies descendants.
I have no doubt that Trig is going to bring tremendous joy to the Palin family and to his extended family, and when I see that precious child, I cringe to think that had he been aborted... well, he wouldn't exist. His life would've ended.
God has a plan and purpose for every human being, including you, and I hope and pray that you will someday know His love for you and know that He loves all people, including disabled babies and people.
|
| Tuesday, October 7, 2008 at 11:29:29 mst
Comment ID: #164
Name: Loves Jesus
I am strong believer and have been for 20 years. That's why it's so shocking to me that I support abortion in this case. I have a close family member who works with children like this and she swears they have distinct personalities. Now, only a handful have Down's (which almost always ends in Alzheimer's), the rest are profoundly...special. I sweated my pregnancies scared to death I'd have a baby like this. I can't inflict it on another family. I am pro-life in every other instance, even rape and incest. But not here.
|
| Tuesday, October 7, 2008 at 11:53:18 mst
Comment ID: #165
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Loves Jesus:
If you're prepared to make an exception to your pro-life convictions for severely retarded children, because of the suffering the mother would go through and, more broadly, the damage to the family's quality of life, I find it hard to understand why you don't make an exception for rape and incest. Surely carrying a rapist's child for nine months, and being constantly reminded of the rape, is also a cause of profound suffering. Try to think how it would feel to you to be in that position.
And, more basically, you seem to have put yourself in the position of judging another person's suffering, and making the decision for them as to whether it's more than they can be expected to bear; of implicitly telling them that they can't decide for themselves that the price of a pregnancy is too high, but have to gain your agreement that they've suffered enough, and if you don't agree, to go on suffering. If that's your position, you may love Jesus, but you don't love pregnant rape victims. They're the ones who bear the costs of pregnancy, not you. They should get to make the decisions.
|
| Tuesday, October 7, 2008 at 15:53:47 mst
Comment ID: #166
Name: Loves Jesus
Dear William: I never intended to come across as judging anyone, especially someone who's experienced the trauma of rape. I belive the baby is innocent and shouldn't pay the price for its father's actions. As far as a chromosomally ... flawed? baby, I have not come to this conclusion lightly. It's been a very painful decision for me. As a pre-Roe unwanted pregnancy, I take abortion seriously. There are millions not with us because of this terrible thing. I do love Jesus and am open to anything He wants to share with me concerning this topic. That's all I meant.
|
| Tuesday, October 7, 2008 at 19:58:55 mst
Comment ID: #167
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Loves Jesus: It's true that a child conceived through rape is innocent of its father's actions. But a mentally retarded child is innocent too. Indeed, a severely retarded child may never, in its entire life, develop enough self-awareness to be capable of moral choice, and thus may never be capable of evil. Yet you are prepared to countenance aborting a fetus likely to become such a child, because of the suffering its birth would cause its mother and her family. If you believe that a fetus is a human being, then you have just said that you accept killing an innocent human being to prevent the suffering of other human beings. And yet, when the equally possible case of a woman impregnated by rape is brought up, you say, "Oh, no, that's killing an innocent human being," as if that settled it, when you have already shown that it doesn't settle it in a case that you personally find agonizing to consider.
An old joke tells of the man who meets a woman at a party, and in talking with her, asks, "Would you have sex with a stranger for a million dollars?" She thinks about it, and say, "Yes, I would." He takes out his wallet and says, "I've got fifty dollars. Let's go upstairs." And she says, indignantly, "What do you think I am?" and he answers, "We've already settled that. I just want to haggle over the price." You've established the principle that you are willing to accept abortion, however reluctantly, to spare a woman agony; that you will countenance what you consider the killing of an innocent human being for that purpose. I'm just asking you to consider that other agonies might justify the same choice.
And it also strikes me that your position raises a problem that Diana's does not. You have said that you would kill a fetus that is genetically defective in certain ways. You have said that a fetus is just as much a human being as a baby that has already been born. So if it's okay, in your eyes, to kill the unborn baby for that reason, do you also think it's okay to kill the baby after its birth, if its severe retardation becomes apparent then? If not, what's the morally relevant difference between the retarded fetus and the retarded neonate?
|
| Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at 9:09:27 mst
Comment ID: #168
Name: Loves Jesus
Dear William,
I'm writing this again because I forgot to do the spam-proof thing and lost my old post. If I double-post with similar material, I'm sorry.
I know that my argument sounds very inconsistent. One child gets to live, one doesn't. But, it's not arbitrary and there is a difference. I know firsthand that a baby conceived as a result of a sexual assault was very much wanted by the couple who adopted him. There is no such thing as an unwanted, healthy baby in this country. I know couples who have been on that long, long adoption waiting list. After spending untold thousands on fertility treatments, they have to spend untold thousands to procure a baby. It's different with a Down's baby. The family has the albatross of retardation to contend with. I know someone my own age (I'm 40)who has been told along with his other sibling that they are to take care of their Down's sister after their parents deaths. That's tough. Most, if not all, Down's children eventually get Alzheimer's. This is a more than lifelong commitment, as it now burdens the next generation upong their parents' expirations.
Healthy babies are not the same. They give back. They bless a family. Even as I type this, I cringe. The nazis killed retarted citizens because they saw no value in their lives. However, this really is the way I've felt for a long time. I'm just now saying it out loud.
|
| Monday, November 3, 2008 at 9:46:14 mst
Comment ID: #169
Name: JJ
Interesting comments "Loves Jesus". So you are saying that a child with Down syndrome only burdens a family, and does not bless? I used to think like you.....until I experienced the birth of my child and the subsequent years I have lived with him. I remember a couple days after my son had been born, I was in agony. I talked to a friend who I knew had a child with Down syndrome a couple years prior to the birth of my son. He told me that my child as brought into my life to make it better. I thought that statement was a cruel and vicious joke. I look back now and I see that he knew exactly what he was talking about....and I had no idea. Pretty much just like you. You put yourself in your friends shoes and you say that the siblings job (taking care of the Down syndrome adult is tough) That's subjective. I know siblings that care for their brother/sister with Down syndrome and they would have it no other way. Sure it's tough. But they just don't seem to see it that way. Your views are consistent in that many people do feel like you do regarding Down syndrome. Unfortunately for you.....and please do not see this as judgemental....it's just a little insight into the close-knit inner world of many families who have children with DS.....children with Down syndrome are considered the world's heart detectors. They, and many other children with disabilities, are a vivid example of a world that has been spiralling downward as a result of being stricken with sin. We are all broken and incomplete to a certain degree. As a result of sin....we all have that unavoidable encounter with death. Bodies are broken, minds are damaged, people hurt each other. That's just the way it is. But for you to say that you are okay with some of the things you have stated, but not okay with this....Your heart has been detected. Take a look at what your bible has to say about the condition of the human heart. The difference with you is....you know there is a chance to trade yours for His.
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 11:06:51 mst
Comment ID: #170
Name: Loves Jesus
JJ:
As far as my heart being "detected", I want you to know that I am very open to God revealing something to me that would change my mind. I am very familiar with Psalm 139, et al. I don't know who exactly has "detected" my heart - perhaps you? I feel very comfortable leaving this in God's hands. I have no authority to stop or endorse abortion. I have a family member who works with these children full time and loves them dearly. Yes, we do live in a fallen world and struggles are a result of this. Truly, I just go back and forth. Who am I to say someone can overrule God, and even go to the extreme of snuffing out their child? It's ultimately not my decision to make. I can appreciate the parents who tough this out. I can also understand the 90% of parents who choose abortion in the case of DS.
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 16:13:30 mst
Comment ID: #171
Name: JJ
He's trying to "Loves Jesus". Sometimes the open mind needs to be closed for repairs in order to be truly open. Most people do not know they are deceived because they are deceived. As you know, the unredeemed human heart is desperately wicked and deceitful above all things. (That's not my detection by the way) Of course it is not your decision to make, unless it is you making the decision. (I'm sorry but your logic is somewhat convoluted and appears to be feeling based) What I was referring to as far as the detection goes is that children with DS typically cause a reaction in people one way or the other. Some people are instantly drawn to the purity and innocent nature, while others are repulsed by the appearance of these children. If you have ears to hear ..then hear this. To those that will be spending eternity in heaven, Christians can be the sweet smell of life. To those that are perishing, Christians can exude the stench of death. As far as your understanding the 90% of parents that choose abortion...that is a very interesting statement. I have a friend and aquintance who terminated a pregnancy because it did not fit into their plans of upward mobility and success. Thirty years and much success later, they both grind over what they thought at the time was important. They recognize now what they did was very selfish. They both achieved much but neither can enjoy it. They are haunted by what they did. They are both brutally honest. If they knew what they know now, about the emptiness of what they thought was success, they would have made a different decision. In spite of their wealth and outward appearance of success, they both admit that they are perhaps two of the most miserable people on the face of the earth. They blame themselves. You understand why 90% choose to terminate DS children? That's good. Because the people who do, don't! YET!
|
| Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 19:13:22 mst
Comment ID: #172
Name: Loves Jesus
I check this site from time to time to see if I have been further condemned, and sure enough, I have. First of all I'm a she. A stay-at-home mom of two. Have been a believer since I was ten. A growing Christian since I was 20 (over 20 years now). I'm not deceived. Have been a ministry wife for 11 years in the Southern Baptist denomination. VERY serious about the Lord. He's all I have that truly lasts, and He's what keeps me going. Very conservative. Read the Word daily. Am currently going through John with my children. As far as the unpleasant remark about my mind, I'll let that go. Just remember, many people are not coming to Christ, and sarcastic Christians are many time the reason! As far as my logic being convoluted and being feeling-based, probably guilty as charged. I'm much more a feeler than a thinker, always have been. It's interesting you should use the "those who are perishing" verse. It was the second verse I learned when I first committed to memorize scripture in college. The 90% statistic I heard listening to "Focus on the Family" on the radio after dropping off my kids at school a couple of weeks ago. I know they're people who regret their abortions, they are a tragedy. I guess I just saw this forum as a safe way to put my feelings out there while trying to figure out how I feel about this. I have prayed about this, and I know God will be faithful to reveal how He feels. I do believe in some gray, and rather than legalism, which is the easy no-discernment way of living, I really want to seek God and see if this is wrong. That's all. I certainly didn't mean to offend you, JJ. I am a fellow believer with a question. That's all.
|
| Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 15:16:37 mst
Comment ID: #173
Name: JJ
You did not offend me. I just have a hard time dealing with Christians who choose to commit intellectual suicide. God gave you a wonderful operative mind that has the ability to think for yourself. Of course as Christians we are called to use our minds in the context of what we know to be ultimate reality...which is our spiritual existence. You kind of remind me of the woman who would ask God whether or not she should get out of bed in the morning. Unless He said (in her mind) yes, she would lay in bed all day. Then she claimed that sometimes God would tell her to only wear one sock, or one shoe, for the day. When she would get laughed at she would claim that she was being persecuted. Needless to say, she turned off quite a few seekers who thought that she and God, must be weirdo's. I really did not intend to be sarcastic...if it sounded that way, I apologize. I'm just letting you know as someone who has walked with God, and has nothing to boast in except that I know and understand Him, the answers to many of your questions are right in front of you. It is very hard to accept anything when it does not fit into the context of ones' ideas of what they presuppose to be true. Sometimes it is more important for a Christian to be right, than it is to humbly accept that they could be wrong. Many people are turned off by Christians who are more concerned about people thinking like they do, instead of encouraging them to walk with God in the midst of a personal, biblical relationship.
|
| Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 15:32:53 mst
Comment ID: #174
Name: Loves Jesus
Although I have a college degree, I don't consider myself to be particulary academic or interllectual. It's just that for so many years, I was drowning in the seas of legalism. If you didn't agree with me or other legalists like me, you were wrong, backslidden and probably lost. No, make that definitely lost! I have felt called away from that bondage in the last few years and have asked God what He thinks on different issues. I see what you're getting at with the sock and shoe thing, but I don't intend to be waiting for an answer for this forever. If I don't feel him saying that terminating a pregnancy when there are dire medical implications is ever acceptable, I will fall back on Psalm 139. I do believe God has a special place for these children. One of my personal heroes, Corrie Ten Boom, taught such children until the nazis shut her down.
I guess ultimately, though, if this is what God has given to you, or even entrusted you with the grace will be given. Don't worry, JJ, I probably will come around on this thing. I'm enjoying the newfound liberty I didn't have for so long. I know that I can ask questions of my very safe Father without fear. "If any of you lack wisdom..."
|
| Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 18:12:17 mst
Comment ID: #175
Name: JJ
Fair enough. I certainly don't claim to know it all and I have been severely corrected and disciplined at times by my inability to see what in hindsight, was perfectly clear. I do know that in my brokeness I have been much more in tune to the "voice" of God. It is much easier to hear God, when you are in the midst of the severe storms of life. It is the unknown and the need that drives us to Him. Although in this life, I must deal with the challenges of raising a child with special needs, I can say without hesitation that the presence of my child has made my life better. I would have never said that before I had him. I would have most certainly agreed with those who thought that children like my child should be terminated. Many people that write on this site do not believe in things that do not touch the senses. In other words, if they cannot see it, feel it, touch it, etc..., they do not believe it to be real. As a Christian, I choose to believe that there is more to this life than what I can see. If this was all there is, I would have a pretty good life and the joy my child has brought me would be more joy than most have been given. The great thing about it is, I not only get to have the joy that my child has brought me in this life, I get to have even more joy in eternity. My child also has quite a bit of joy in this life, and I promise you, many like my child will be first in the life to come.
|
| Monday, November 10, 2008 at 5:43:39 mst
Comment ID: #176
Name: Loves Jesus
JJ:
Beautifully put. You are truly blessed in this life, and will be amazingly so in the next life. As far as it being much easier to hear God in the midst of trials, let's just say my spiritual ears perk up when storms hit. I have had much trouble in this life where if God hadn't come through, I wouldn't have made it. David said that a man has many troubles, but God delivers him from every one - Psalm 34:19. Always liked that one. But I discovered this verse this year. David is on his deathbed. "As surely as the LORD lives, who has delivered me out of every trouble, ..." He now spoke of it in the past tense, looking back and realizing God had come through for him time and time again. Very encouraging to me!
I'll wrap it up with you with what I spoke to a friend last night: I'm still saddened to hear when this happens to a family, although I have heard many times that these children bless more than they detract. These babies are God's creation. We have no right to stop their beating hearts. It simply isn't our right. This (why God allows things like this to happen) is up there with other questions we don't understand down here. One day it simply won't matter. In the meantime, JJ, many blessings on your family. I'm glad I could hear your point of view.
|
| Thursday, November 13, 2008 at 21:32:05 mst
Comment ID: #177
Name: JJ
Interesting. As a Christian, and one who knows and understand Him, perhaps I don't know exactly why God allows these things to happen, although I do have some insight as to why. We live in a world that is fallen and spiralling downward into increasing levels of disorder. To put it quite frankly, the future for this world is not very bright. In contrast we see our future as one that shines brighter and brighter even until that perfect day. Now....if you look at this statement, it doesn't appear on the surface to make much sense. On one hand you have a world that is is flying fast towards chaos, and then on the other hand you have a Christian who shines brighter and brighter. Once again, in the light of an eternal and spiritual perspective, we have some insight into ultimate reality. Why do these things happen? I don't know completely, but in the light of an eternal perspective I have an idea. It's the same reason why one day you, and I, and every single person on the face of the earth, has an unavoidable date with death. We are subject in this life, and in this temporary earth suit, to the effects of sin....which ends in physical death.
|
|
| Post Your Comment on "The Worship of Retardation" |
|
|
|
