Right to Choose: Usurped by Doctors and Professors?
Thanks to the posts I've written about my son Anthony who died in Jan. 2005, and about children and young adults with Down Syndrome, my attention was drawn to this disturbing article and commentary. A biology professor [intershunned] at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill told his class that he believed it was a "moral imperative" for older mothers to have amniocentesis and, should the results find that the baby had an extra 21st chromosome (Down Syndrome), they should abort the child.
The professor's evidence for this claim? "I know somebody who had a child like this, and it ruined their life," he said.
Well, I'm sure the family he spoke for appreciates his telling them they should have retroactively murdered their child so as to not "ruin their lives."
Also from the original article:
[The Professor] says he wouldn't follow his own moral position.
If he thought his wife was going to have a child with Down syndrome, he would still want to have the baby.
That's it in a moral nutshell. The [intershunned] professor believes that his right to choose supercedes the right of the unborn child of other people, and in the case of his own family, believes his right to choose outweighs that of his wife.
And he faced that situation.
His wife, then 34, was pregnant with their third child when she suffered major bleeding. Doctors told the couple to prepare for the worst.
They did, now? Bleeding has nothing to do with Down Syndrome. It has to do with miscarriage, which could be for any number of reasons. Miscarriages are most frequently the result of genetic abnormalities, in which the fetus cannot develop properly (fatal defects). Later in pregnancy, bleeding can mean placenta previa, or other conditions, not one of which are more common with Down Syndrome babies who are developing -- or not.
This man, who as of the writing of the article (earlier this year) was 64 years old, has been teaching college students for three decades. He states that he has frequently brought up his opinions regarding the abortion of Down Syndrome babies, and that it had never been controversial before. His other reason for bringing up this topic to his students was to "encourage discussion" and "controversy."
I am anti-abortion for myself, yet I believe that I cannot, and should not, make that choice for others. I do not think that choice should be encouraged, however, and I especially do not think that Down Syndrome should be regarded as a condition deserving of being put to death before the baby's life even has a chance to start. I would never force a couple to have a child that they believe they would hate, even though I find it difficult to believe that, given the chance, they would not love the baby beyond all measure.
But to turn this into a moral imperative? That is unspeakably bankrupt. This man -- and it's always a man -- wishes to put all these children out there to death because he knew one couple whose lives he believes were "ruined" by the Down Syndrome child. He is so consistent in his beliefs that he would not choose this alternative for "his" baby. What would his position be if his wife insisted she did not want the baby? Force her to have it anyway?
The "right to choose" does not mean "daddy's choice." I was just sitting last night with a fellow who was happily chatting about his recent ex-girlfriend, stating, "I got her pregnant twice." And asked her to have an abortion (apparently, she did) both times.
As the recipient of internet abuse on this very topic, I was appalled at the time even more than by all of the rest of the extraordinary idiocy. I was told via the internet by a virtual stranger that I should have aborted my baby. I was then told that I should "burn in Hell" for not having an abortion. The "man" (I use that term very loosely) is an avowed Atheist. That's not the first time I've seen an Atheist referring to "Hell." So which is it they believe? Hell in general, Hell without Heaven, or Hell only for one's enemies?
I'll tell you what about the "abortion debate" in general. It is largely fomented by men. There's a lot of anger among feminists who believe that men are trying to force them to have babies they don't want. I've seldom, if ever, seen any feminist refer to the far more common and nearly universal issues raised here. Men are the ones who encourage, pay for, and push abortions. They are the ones who want control of the "choice." They'll go so far as this professor here, teaching students of their "moral beliefs" -- beliefs they will not even adhere to themselves, for their own children.
Physically, women must be less hypocritical. Despite all the control, the abuse, the bullying, the decision-making, the ordering around, the woman is the one who carries the baby. She is the one who gives birth. She is the one who chooses, if she wishes, to not have the baby.
And they wonder why we have wars. As long as it's someone else doing the dying or killing, it's so very easy to give orders. So hard to do it right. It isn't that difficult to do it right -- if you're human.









