Op-Ed Writer: Trig Palin a Financial Burden Who Should Have Been Aborted

[red states rule]

The liberal media are sinking lower and lower as the poll numbers for the Palin ticket go higher and higher

Now, this liberal twit feels he is qualified to decide which babies live or die



Palin's Down syndrome child and the right to abortion

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 6:45 AM


Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin's decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.

A parent has a moral obligation to provide for his or her children until these children are equipped to provide for themselves. Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision, unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child's life upon others.

So while anti-abortion commentators such as Michael Franc of the National Review sees Down syndrome's victims as "ambassadors of God" who "offer us the opportunity to rise to that greatest of all challenges," for many, that opportunity for challenge is little more than a lifetime of endless burden. In this light, it is completely legitimate for a woman to look at the circumstances of her life and decide that having a child with Down syndrome (or any child for that matter) is not an obligation that she can accept. After all, the choice to have a child is a profoundly selfish choice; that is, a choice that is an expression of the parent's personal desire to create new life.

And most parents seek to create healthy life; in the case of the unborn fetuses shown to have severe developmental disabilities, one study reports that over 90% of these fetuses are aborted prior to birth. But if you notice, the anti-abortion zealots try to attach a dirty little slur to these abortions, labeling them a form of eugenics. For example, in 2005, as he condemned those who opposed federal legislation that would have attempted to dissuade women carrying fetuses diagnosed with severe disabilities from having abortions, conservative pundit George Will wrote:

If it is not unobjectionable, let's identify the objectors, who probably favor the pernicious quest -- today's "respectable" eugenics -- for a disability-free society.

So in the anti-abortion advocate's eyes, a parent's desire to raise healthy children by squelching unhealthy fetuses while the are still in the womb is little more than a pernicious quest, but it is not considered a pernicious quest to knowingly bring severely disabled children into this world. On the contrary, such a choice is held out as an great example of upstanding morality. For example, consider this recent press release from a conservative anti-abortion advocacy group which celebrated Plain's birth announcement:

The Palin family is a wonderful example of a family who made the right choice to embrace their child and his future. Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), commends Governor Palin, saying, "She is even more beautiful inside than out. Her proud and warm announcement of the birth of their special child revealed the depth of love and faith of this extraordinary woman. May God give America more women and statesmen like her.

"Special needs children can bring out the best in people. They draw out compassion, patience, a joy for the simple things in life in people around them," says Wright. "In some ways, we need special needs people more than they need us."

That is, we need the mentally retarded to teach us how to better sacrifice our lives and divest ourselves of our self-interested ways more than they need us to care for them. At Noodlefood, Diana Hsieh condemns such a stand as "the worship of retardation." Given that Palin had complete foreknowledge of her child's severe disability yet nevertheless chose to have it, it is hard not to see her choice as anything less.

http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2008/09/palins-down-syndrome-child-and-right-to.htm

[manu1959]

i thought these tree huggers were pro-choice.....tollerant......accepting.....and for taking care of those less fortunate.....

[red states rule]

i thought these tree huggers were pro-choice.....tollerant......accepting.....and for taking care of those less fortunate.....

Nicholas Provenzo's views on "productive" citizens reminds me of Berlin in the 1930's

Nonproductive citizens were killed so they would not be a drain on society

[manu1959]

Nicholas Provenzo's views on "productive" citizens reminds me of Berlin in the 1930's

Nonproductive citizens were killed so they would not be a drain on society

nonproductive citizens now get free housing, free food, free clothing, free job training and free money.....all provided by the productive citizens.......

[red states rule]

nonproductive citizens now get free housing, free food, free clothing, free job training and free money.....all provided by the productive citizens.......

Those nonproductive citizens are able, and taught, to vote Democrat. That may be the difference here

[krisy]

Amazing how liberals are all for choice...as long as it's their choice

All for working moms.....as long as thier liberal moms


How dare this liberal judge what someone else does with her "reproductive rights"

hypocrits...every stinkin one of them

[red states rule]

Amazing how liberals are all for choice...as long as it's their choice

All for working moms.....as long as thier liberal moms


How dare this liberal judge what someone else does with her "reproductive rights"

hypocrits...every stinkin one of them

Libs are always pro life as long as the life in on death row

Nicholas Provenzo's supreme arrogance is a common trait with liberals

[manu1959]

Those nonproductive citizens are able, and taught, to vote Democrat. That may be the difference here

plus the dead ones still vote the party line.........

[red states rule]

plus the dead ones still vote the party line.........

It is amazing how Dems always get 100% of the cemetery in every election

[AFbombloader]

Maybe his mom should have aborted her pregnancy, because this guy is mentally handicapped!

AF:salute:

[red states rule]

What is next from the kook left? That all expecting parents must submit medical proof their babies are in perfect health, or they must abort them?

[Yurt]

Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[2] Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier, stronger and/or more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.

...

Eugenics in the United States (1890s–1978)
Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood of America) found it a useful tool to urge the legalization of contraception. In its time eugenics was seen by many as scientific and progressive, the natural application of knowledge about breeding to the arena of human life. Before the death camps of World War II, the idea that eugenics could lead to genocide was not taken seriously.

Eugenics was supported by Woodrow Wilson, and, in 1907, helped to make Indiana the first of more than thirty states to adopt legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain individuals.[33] Although the law was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1921,[34] the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Virginia law allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions in 1927.[35]

Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded" from marrying. In 1898 Charles B. Davenport, a prominent American biologist, began as director of a biological research station based in Cold Spring Harbor where he experimented with evolution in plants and animals. In 1904 Davenport received funds from the Carnegie Institution to found the Station for Experimental Evolution. The Eugenics Record Office opened in 1910 while Davenport and Harry H. Laughlin began to promote eugenics.[36]
....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

[red states rule]

If Obama gets elected, Nicholas Provenzo's would be the "perfect" choice to head up Obama Care

He could then decide what medical procedures should be approved based on how they benefit society and for the common good

Scary eh?

[April15]

Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[2] Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier, stronger and/or more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.

...

Eugenics in the United States (1890s–1978)
Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood of America) found it a useful tool to urge the legalization of contraception. In its time eugenics was seen by many as scientific and progressive, the natural application of knowledge about breeding to the arena of human life. Before the death camps of World War II, the idea that eugenics could lead to genocide was not taken seriously.

Eugenics was supported by Woodrow Wilson, and, in 1907, helped to make Indiana the first of more than thirty states to adopt legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain individuals.[33] Although the law was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1921,[34] the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Virginia law allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions in 1927.[35]

Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded" from marrying. In 1898 Charles B. Davenport, a prominent American biologist, began as director of a biological research station based in Cold Spring Harbor where he experimented with evolution in plants and animals. In 1904 Davenport received funds from the Carnegie Institution to found the Station for Experimental Evolution. The Eugenics Record Office opened in 1910 while Davenport and Harry H. Laughlin began to promote eugenics.[36]
....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

To bad it wasn't still practiced there would be far fewer republican'ts.

[red states rule]

To bad it wasn't still practiced there would be far fewer republican'ts.

If you want liberalsim 24/7 move to Cuba or Venezuela

Just don;t speak out against the powers that be. You mmay lose your breathing privileges

[April15]

If you want liberalsim 24/7 move to Cuba or Venezuela

Just don;t speak out against the powers that be. You mmay lose your breathing privilegesCuba is to close to the USA in politics so it would be Brazil for me.

[red states rule]

Cuba is to close to the USA in politics so it would be Brazil for me.

Cuba would be close to US policitcs only if Obama wins

If you want to go to Brazil, I will be happy to drive you to the airport, and walk you to the plane

If you need money for a ticket, I am confident I could hold a successful a fund raiser for a one way ticket for you

[Yurt]

To bad it wasn't still practiced there would be far fewer republican'ts.

how open minded you liberal

nice that you support the deaths of your political opponents

[red states rule]

how open minded you liberal

nice that you support the deaths of your political opponents

Like most liberals, he is so open minded his brains fell out along time ago

Libs always celebrate the death of the poltical opponents. Look at all the kind words the left had for Tony Snow, and others

[avatar4321]

how open minded you liberal

nice that you support the deaths of your political opponents

He just reveals his true intentions. He wants people who are less advanced then him murdered. Generally this is code for minorities.

[red states rule]

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0gwwdzLdgx7G7/340x.jpg

So this baby does live up to the standards of Nicholas Provenzo's, and should have been killed?

Despicable is the best way I can describe Mr Provenzo

[midcan5]

When those opposed to abortion can get pregnant and then allow government to interfere in the privacy of their life, they can have an opinion, until then they remain hypocrites, as the same people did not protest the bombing of innocent children in Iraq, nor the deaths in Darfur to name only a few of the millions of deaths they care not about.

http://bostonreview.net/BR20.3/thomson.html

"Let us begin by reminding ourselves of what is at stake for women in the abortion controversy.

Some women want abortions. Why? They have a variety of reasons. The woman who is pregnant due to rape may feel devastated by the prospect of carrying and giving birth to the child of the man who violated her. The woman whose health is already at risk may not want to undergo the increased risk that carrying the fetus to term would impose on her. The woman who has already had several children, and has now been deserted by the man she lived with, may believe herself unable to supply a decent life for yet another child. A woman may discover that the child she will deliver will be horribly deformed. A woman who is preparing to embark on a career that requires hard work and single-mindedness may prefer to wait until she is in a position to give a child the attention a child needs."

[darin]

Nobody purposely bombed innocent ANYONE, you partisan hack.

[red states rule]

When those opposed to abortion can get pregnant and then allow government to interfere in the privacy of their life, they can have an opinion, until then they remain hypocrites, as the same people did not protest the bombing of innocent children in Iraq, nor the deaths in Darfur to name only a few of the millions of deaths they care not about.

http://bostonreview.net/BR20.3/thomson.html

"Let us begin by reminding ourselves of what is at stake for women in the abortion controversy.

Some women want abortions. Why? They have a variety of reasons. The woman who is pregnant due to rape may feel devastated by the prospect of carrying and giving birth to the child of the man who violated her. The woman whose health is already at risk may not want to undergo the increased risk that carrying the fetus to term would impose on her. The woman who has already had several children, and has now been deserted by the man she lived with, may believe herself unable to supply a decent life for yet another child. A woman may discover that the child she will deliver will be horribly deformed. A woman who is preparing to embark on a career that requires hard work and single-mindedness may prefer to wait until she is in a position to give a child the attention a child needs."

and when confronted with the rants of looney lib dictating how Gov Palin should have murdered her child - you change the subject

The bottom line is Gov Palin made her decision, and arrogant libs bellow how they know better

[Immanuel]

To bad it wasn't still practiced there would be far fewer republican'ts.

You know that you and I don't agree on much but I generally find you humorous at least, but this one I just happen to find waaaaaaayyyyyyy below you.

Entirely inappropriate.

Margeret Sanger should have been inprisoned rather than made a liberal Goddess.

Immie

[red states rule]

You know that you and I don't agree on much but I generally find you humorous at least, but this one I just happen to find waaaaaaayyyyyyy below you.

Entirely inappropriate.

Margeret Sanger should have been inprisoned rather than made a liberal Goddess.

Immie

One of the few things consistent with liberals is their hate

[Immanuel]

One of the few things consistent with liberals is their hate

Hmmmm, one could ask you about hate?

Do you hate liberals?

You seem to consistantly post as if you do. :laugh2:

Are you a liberal? ;) {ducks}

Immie

[red states rule]

Hmmmm, one could ask you about hate?

Do you hate liberals?

You seem to consistantly post as if you do. :laugh2:

Are you a liberal? ;) {ducks}

Immie

I do not hate liberals. I only wish them politcally defeated

Libs on the other hand, openly cheer when conservatives die. Example - Tony Snow

Libs have openly hoped for the murder of Pres Bush

[Yurt]

When those opposed to abortion can get pregnant and then allow government to interfere in the privacy of their life, they can have an opinion, until then they remain hypocrites, as the same people did not protest the bombing of innocent children in Iraq, nor the deaths in Darfur to name only a few of the millions of deaths they care not about.

http://bostonreview.net/BR20.3/thomson.html

"Let us begin by reminding ourselves of what is at stake for women in the abortion controversy.

Some women want abortions. Why? They have a variety of reasons. The woman who is pregnant due to rape may feel devastated by the prospect of carrying and giving birth to the child of the man who violated her. The woman whose health is already at risk may not want to undergo the increased risk that carrying the fetus to term would impose on her. The woman who has already had several children, and has now been deserted by the man she lived with, may believe herself unable to supply a decent life for yet another child. A woman may discover that the child she will deliver will be horribly deformed. A woman who is preparing to embark on a career that requires hard work and single-mindedness may prefer to wait until she is in a position to give a child the attention a child needs."

and that is at stake for the man who WANTS to raise the child but has no say? where is his choice?