Okay, let me respond to the comments I've received about "Meet Miss Alaska (runner-up)," in which I implied that the existence of Ms. Palin's Down syndrome-inflicted 5th child might indicate some poor judgment on her part. My thoughts on reproduction, genetic testing, and abortion probably deserve a more developed treatment than this, but you'll have to settle for this, for now.
Here's the thing: I know that even as a pro-choice liberal I'm supposed to indicate that of course abortion is bad, that everyone would prefer fewer unwanted pregnancies and thus fewer abortions, that in an ideal world there would be no abortions. Well...sorry, but I just don't feel that way. First term abortions, which make up 91% of all abortions performed in the U.S., are, to me, the moral equivalent of having melanoma removed from your shoulder after overexposure to the sun on vacation, of getting stitches after you've fallen down a flight of stairs while carelessly multitasking, or any other minor, outpatient procedure that might have been avoided, but wasn't. Should we try to avoid the problem first? Absolutely. Does that have anything to do with the remedies available to us? No.
Medical science provides us with safe ways of treating a wide range of medical conditions, one of which is pregnancy, which happens to be the result of one of the things human beings most frequently engage in while not using all of their mental faculties. Yes, that little clump of cells will one day become a screaming little asshole while you're trying to get a decent night's sleep, but until then, it's really just a clump of cells, folks. (Unless of course you believe in magic.) Medical science has also gifted us with the amazing ability to make determinations about the chromosomal health of the fetus very early in pregnancy, sparing us the emotional anguish of aborting something that has started to look like a human being.
Medical science also gives us the amazing ability to correct and/or eliminate things that are not as they should be. (I've never heard anyone defend the rights of irradiated cancer cells.) This means that we can spare ourselves and full-term infants the agonizing misery of certain horrific chromosomal disorders like spina bifida and anencephaly and yes...Down's syndrome. I know, I know, "they're so happy and full of love." Well if they're so happy then why aren't we trying to genetically manufacture that extra chromosome? If they have so much love, why don't we clone retarded babies and repopulate the world with them? I'll tell you why: Because they suffer from a defect that is debilitating in the course of a normal human existence. Nothing is more depressing than seeing old couples with dead faces, walking through the mall with their 30-year old bundle of happiness and love, their entire lives having been sucked out of them caring for the mental equivalent of a three year old during what should have been their golden years.
If you're shocked and appalled by this, you're probably confusing my belief that we should take advantage of medial science to eradicate this particular defect with contempt for retarded people. This would be a mistake. If I sound a little harsh, it's because I do harbor contempt for parents who knowingly bring them into the world, knowing what a hard existence it will be for everyone involved.
Call me heartless, but it feels like compassion to me. I don't want to see people suffer. I want people to take advantage of the wonders of modern science to increase their happiness and thus the happiness of their fellow citizens. I also don't see how anyone can think that abortion should be safe and legal while believing that it is ultimately bad. I don't believe that abortion is bad. I believe that it should be safe and legal. I abhor people who choose to bring babies to term knowing that they will die an excruciating and revolting death within days or months. I abhor people who are irresponsible enough to not find these things out through genetic testing - particularly when they are older and more likely to encounter these disorders.
I know I've meandered a bit here, but I just wanted to try to lay out an explanation for what some of you have perceived as callousness. Yes, I do question the judgment of a woman who had a child at the age of 43 without taking the health and happiness of that child into consideration. I do think that a wise and compassionate person would have overcome their own vanity and selfish desire enough to terminate that pregnancy. I know that's hard to ingest, but you don't read this blog for pussyfooting around, do you?
Comments