Sarah Palin, McCain's VP pick, is being lauded by many pro-birth conservatives for having decided not to have an abortion even though she knew early in her pregnancy that she was carrying a fetus with Down syndrome. And if she had her way, no woman would have the legal right to make the choice she had the right to make. All would be required to have the child.
I'm inclined to say that Palin shouldn't be admired and praised for her choice, but criticized if not condemned for it, and condemned all the more for wanting to take the choice away from everyone else. Life is difficult enough, especially in the social Darwinist world the Republicans glorify, for even those of average or superior intelligence. Why knowingly bring a mentally handicapped child into this, as conservative "stand-up comedian, political/sports commentator, and television/radio personality" Dennis Miller puts it, "Serengeti Plain" of a world if one can prevent it early on?
To "spare the life" of a precious child? "Spare" it from what? From a life of tremendous struggle against all-but-impossible odds in an ever-more complicated and rapidly changing world? From the "wide gate" to hell in which fundamentalist Christians like Palin and John McCain believe?
And you want to know something really ironic about all of this? Sarah Palin and her husband are not fabulously wealthy individuals. I suspect that they're a lot better off financially than most of us, but not rich enough to be able to pay out of their own pockets for all of the special services their Down syndrome child will require over the course of his life. So, who do you think will pick up the tab? The federal government, of course. That means all of us. The same federal government that politicians like McCain and Palin are so hellbent on shrinking, and the same American people that these politicians say they want to tax less.
Are the American people so stupid or blind that they can't understand or see this? Yes, I think they are. And so all-too-many of them will vote for John McCain partly because he chose Sarah Palin who made a legal choice to bring a mentally handicapped child into this cruel world to suffer the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" and face the high probability of burning in screaming agony forever and ever in the world to come.
33 comments:
And I thought you said in the last post that it would be the Repubs. who'd be gnashing their teeth.
Todd-
No, I'm not for making her choice illegal, and I'm not complaining about having to help pay for the government services her child will probably require.
Your blog just made me cry. I am a mother of a child with disabilies. I promise you that you nor any other person will have to support my child. Adrian is my joy and blessing. I have never regretted having my child. Pleasee do not condemn those of us that have had a child with a disability instead of an abortion.
I suggest that you criticize Gov. Palin's political views and/or her lack of experience instead of her personal choice to have a child with disabilities. When did the democratic party became so mean, so arrogant, so prejudiced? If this is the kind of hope Obama is selling I do NOT want any part of it.
Nagarjuna:
You thought Obama wouldn't get enough votes after he didn't choose Hillary; do you still feel the same after McCain's wacko/loony choice?
Grateful Said
Anon,
Please don't confuse my views on abortion with those of Obama's or the Democratic party in general. I speak for myself here. I speak as someone with severe learning disabilities who struggles daily if not constantly to get by in a world that is too fast-paced and complex for him and who wishes he could escape it but is too scared of dying and of leaving his beloved wife behind to kill himself.
And one of my major points about pro-birth people is that they keep talking about sparing the life of the "unborn child," yet they also believe that aborting the child is the only sure way of sparing it the everlasting pains of hell and sending it to the eternal joys of heaven.
Up to 75% of all resulting conceptions are spontaneously aborted, AKA "miscarriages."
I think this is just what happened to my wife at least a couple times before each of her successful pregnancies.
So do I believe there are 4 spirit children of mine running around in some afterlife or purgatory? No, I do not.
I take it if spirits DID come into this world by any semblance of order they would do just that at the given time they were supposed to.
Grateful Said
Hello Again,
I was just checking on the goings on and noticed this posting of yours. First off I am personally opposed to abortion, a good friend of mine is an abortion doctor and he and I have had a number of discussions on the subject and certainly there are times where it is neccessary but I do not approve of abortion as birth control. Use a condom or take the pill.
Secondly I have known several people with Down Syndrome and they are universally some of the nicest folks I have ever met. I enjoy spending time with them because they are very genuine in their feelings and friendships.
Thirdly, while I agree the world can be a truly horrific place, if the child is prepared well they will in most instances thrive(after all there are 6 billion of us on this rock) sadly there are those instances where accidents take them early or predators in our midst get them, but for the most part if prepared well they will do well.
Finally you refer to the too fast pace of the world around you. Look where you live! You have made the choice to live there! My wife and I got fed up with the California BS and moved to Nevada. The pace is much slower here and if we wished to we could make even slower by moving a further 25 minutes away. At some point you have to realise that yes you may have disabilities(trust me we all do!) but so what! Make a better choice for you. Look at Burning Man. It originated in San Francisco but moved to the Black Rock Desert of NEVADA! You are the Captain of your ship, command!
Gary
"And one of my major points about pro-birth people is that they keep talking about sparing the life of the "unborn child," yet they also believe that aborting the child is the only sure way of sparing it the everlasting pains of hell and sending it to the eternal joys of heaven."
???????????????????????!
Steve,
Not everyone is like you. Some people find joy and love on a deeper level than they could have ever possibly conceived due to the interactions with their handicapped children and vice versa.
I'm sure that if you spent some time with the Palin family, you might be able to glimpse what I'm speaking of.
Life is not all about the mechanics of putting food in our mouths.
And not to speak for pro life groups but I beleive their reasoning is that each baby conceived deserves a chance to live that life and experience that love and joy and that there are alternatives to death through abortion such as adoption.
And as crazy as you may think it sounds, there are people willing to adopt handicapped or Down Syndrome babies.
"And one of my major points about pro-birth people is that they keep talking about sparing the life of the "unborn child," yet they also believe that aborting the child is the only sure way of sparing it the everlasting pains of hell and sending it to the eternal joys of heaven."
I'd like to know when exactly you formed this distortion?
Gary--
It's fine that you don't believe in abortion and that you know seemingly happy children and adults with Down syndrome. But if you oppose granting women the right to choose to have abortions, that is NOT fine in my book at all, especially if you also oppose the government providing services that help parents to raise these children under the best circumstances possible.
As for moving to Nevada, I can't afford it, and my learning difficulties would follow me wherever I went. I'd just have a harder time there than here finding gainful employment in a smaller and less diverse job market.
Todd--
Where is the "distortion"? What do the Scriptures say about the comparative widths of the gates to heaven and hell, and where do you think most Bible-believing Christians believe that the souls of aborted fetuses end up? And what conclusion do you reach when you join your answers together?
"And what conclusion do you reach when you join your answers together?"
Uhh, those would be YOUR answers.
Todd--
In my previous comment, I didn't present MY answers; I asked for YOURS. Once again, what do the Scriptures say about the comparative widths of the gates to heaven and hell, where do you think most Bible-believing Christians believe that the souls of aborted fetuses end up, and how, when you join your answers together, is my representation of Christian belief a "distortion"?
Nagarjuna,
Christian New Testament "Scripture" declares the "widths" leading into heaven are sooooooooooooooooo thin only a very few make it.
I see your point as being, IF fetuses, by dying, have a sure thing being accepted into Eternal Bliss, and those who live passed the womb hardly have a chance to make it there at all, why shouldn't humans abort all fetuses considering their souls greater and eternal good.
Great question!
Grateful Said
Said--
My point is that fundamentalist Christians don't make a lot of sense to me when they talk about how awful abortion is when they also believe that abortion guarantees that the souls of the aborted will go to heaven instead of facing a high probability of being tortured forever in hell if they're born and allowed to sin. And, yes, one could proceed from here to embrace your argument that abortion, far from being the selfish, evil act pro-birth dogmatists say it is, is the most selfless and wonderfully loving act a pregnant woman could commit in that she's risking eternal damnation in order to make sure that her fetus ends up in heaven.
I was asking how you get from here,
"And one of my major points about pro-birth people is that they keep talking about sparing the life of the "unborn child,"
To here,
yet they also believe that aborting the child is THE ONLY SURE WAY of sparing it the everlasting pains of hell and sending it to the eternal joys of heaven."
in the same sentence ????????m (note the bolding)
You say that Christianity is full of haters and needs to be ignored and yet you try and sound as if you are some sort of biblical scholar wirh deep understanding of Biblical meanings and interpretations.
Yea, you and Jeremiah Wright, biblical scholars,.......heh.
Todd--
I don't claim to be a biblical scholar or anything close to it. But if my main point is false, can you or anyone else explain WHY it is? Matthew 7:13-14 has Jesus himself saying, "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." And is it also not true that most Christian fundamentalists believe that the souls of aborted fetuses go to heaven, since they die before they reach an age and condition of being responsible for their actions and thus capable of sinning? And if these two things are true, how is my main point not ALSO true? And if my main point is true, why do pro-birth Christians believe that abortion is such a horrible thing?
Well since your "main point" of the wide path to Hell and the narrow path to Heaven was made three quarters of the way through the comments and was completely detached (out of the blue) from anything which came before, as if people are living in your head and understand your "logic", I'm not seeing what the arguement is. Regardless, your interpretation is still a distortion.
But if you want to intetpret the Bible to mean that aborting all babies is some sort of selfless act which sends them to Heaven and the Mothers to Hell then have at it.
That sort of twisted logic fits better with the radical environmental community which would love the eradication of humanity since it is such a blight on Mother Gaia. To bad they don't have the balls to start with themselves and actually practice what they preach.
Sarah's choice is America's choice.
Todd--
You can find my main point in my original post, my "logic" is perfectly logical, and you haven't explained how my "interpretation" is a "distortion," and, frankly, I don't see how in the world you can, although you're welcome to give it your best shot.
You tell me how it isn't the ultimate selfless act for a woman who believes that she could go to hell for aborting her fetus to go ahead and abort it anyway because she wants to make sure that it avoids hell and goes to heaven.
You have an extremely dark soul.
Flesh out your arguement, make it into a post and then take a poll with two choices;
Genius
or
Whackjob
Let your readers decide.
You flatter yourself by thinking that you comunicated your "main point" in your blog piece. Nothing you wrote even remotly suggests what you disclosed late in the comments section.
How you can think that you did points your inability to separate what is actually writen down for all to see, from what is going on in your head.
No wonder Bob told you to leave, you have an inability to reason.
Todd--
As a matter of fact, I intend to "flesh out" my argument in a future post, and it doesn't matter to me how people would respond to your false dichotomy "poll." What WOULD matter to me is if someone had a good counterargument to mine. But so far I haven't seen one. What I HAVE seen is ad hominem attack on my intelligence and/or sanity for presenting the argument, and this tactic is usually the last refuge of the frustrated or desperate.
I understand that my argument is unpalatable, but that doesn't make it unsound. Explain to me how it's unsound.
Abort a fetus and save a soul?
Todd,
Are you a Christian who thinks fetuses that are aborted go to heaven? If so, then isn't Nagarjuna's argument well-taken on your end?
I don't happen to believe some creator of everything God exists but I do see IF ONE DID it sure would seem that aborting fetuses and making SURE they would survive into Eternal Bliss would be any good parent's most basic, protective, and loving action and instinct.
Grateful Said
Said--
Whether Todd is a Christian or not, I don't see how he can refute my argument that it's foolish for a Christian to say that abortion is a terrible thing for the fetus. Yet, Todd seems to feel some compulsion to argue with me at every turn, and if he can't do it with facts and logic, he'll do it with personal attacks. But you and I see through his flimsy veneer of personal attacks on me to the absence of substance underneath.
Nag,
I'm very familiar with people who are empty of arguments and can only muster lowering themselves to insulting opposing posters. I agree that Todd seems to be resorting to this same sad tactic.
If I'm wrong about him, I'd be more than happy to read any of his arguments IF he'd ever decide to spit one out. (G)
Grateful Said
Hello again,
Please note I said I did not approve of abortion as a form of birth control. That being said I have no problem with abortions all the way through the 1st trimester for any reason (yes even birth control) but I have a real serious issue with late term abortions. Why couldn't the woman make up her mind sooner?
Cheers
Gary
Gary--
I think you and I agree on this issue.
Todd--
I reason just fine. I've expressed my reason for questioning why Christians regard abortion as a terrible act for the fetus, and I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. What is flawed in my rational argument that abortion is a great thing for the fetus?
As for "Sarah's choice" being "America's choice," if you really mean to suggest that she is the most capable Republican to take over as president in the event of melanomic McCain's incapacitation or death, then it would seem that the Republican party has an even more serious problem that I thought.
Steve said,
"What is flawed in my rational argument that abortion is a great thing for the fetus?"
That flaw would be your soul.
Todd--
If my argument is sound, how is my soul flawed?
"And you want to know something really ironic about all of this? Sarah Palin and her husband are not fabulously wealthy individuals. I suspect that they're a lot better off financially than most of us, but not rich enough to be able to pay out of their own pockets for all of the special services their Down syndrome child will require over the course of his life. So, who do you think will pick up the tab? The federal government, of course. That means all of us. The same federal government that politicians like McCain and Palin are so hellbent on shrinking, and the same American people that these politicians say they want to tax less."
You know what's really ironic? The idea that the Gov't should be involved at all is only possible through a leftist view of Gov't, it is only through the perversion of Liberalism into leftism that anybody would even consider the notion that the Federal Gov't could, would or should be involved. And you are completely clueless about it.
Not surprising at all.
Van, are you sure you aren't placing antiquated ideology before the pressing needs of real people in the real world of today?
Post a Comment