Why I Hate Palin.

[fickle]

Governor Palin has a Down's syndrome kid.

I know, I know, that doesn't seem like a reason for me to hate her. After all, I grew up with a handicapped sister, taught special ed kids, and am generally highly in favor of rights for disabled people.

But the thing is, Palin doesn't just have a Down's kid. She chose to have one. Early screening meant that she was warned that her baby had Down's syndrome but due to her stance on abortion, she decided to go ahead and have the child anyway.

STUPID. Stupid, stupid, stupid and selfish. So you're pro-life and refuse to abort this kid on principle? Congratulations, you've doomed him to a lifetime of suffering. A short lifetime, mind you, because most Down's kids have shorter lifespans and are highly susceptible to anything going around, but it's still pretty much a given that they're going to suffer for as long as they live. They won't be able to keep up with the other kids, they'll be developmentally stunted both physically and mentally and it's all your fault for having brought said kid into the world, knowing what he'd have to face.

In the class I taught, one girl called Sandy had Down's syndrome and about a month after I finished with her class, she died of pneumonia. Before that, she had to wear diapers all the time, and the aides had to take her into the bathroom to change her and wipe her ass, because she couldn't even manage that on her own. She couldn't talk normally, she was short and highly obese and even in the classroom full of special needs kids, she stuck out as even more hopeless than most. Sandy was 22 when she died, but she was about at the developmental stage of a 2-year-old, if that.

And this is the sort of child that Governor Palin thinks is a gift from God. This is the sort of life that she's going to cause the boy to lead, because she's too selfish to put aside her own views and think about what's honestly best for the child.

Apart from which, you know what? She has no business running for VP if she has a disabled kid.

Nobody with a disabled kid should be taking on a public office job that has a huge time commitment, because there's no way that they can do that and take care of their child at the same time. My parents both worked full-time, had a live-in nurse, a live-in maid and an older daughter who took care of herself (me), and even they worked themselves to the bone to take care of my sister. I refuse to believe that Palin can juggle four kids, a Down's syndrome kid, and the job of being VP all at once; there's no way she can manage it and still give her kids the attention they need, especially the disabled one.

Obama's choice of VP is 'meh', because for a guy who talks about CHANGE all the time, he went with a really traditional Old White Male choice.

McCain's choice? Thoroughly despicable. Even putting aside the anti-abortion, anti-contraception (wtf, has she never heard of AIDS?) issues, I have no respect for anyone who would deliberately bring a child into the world, knowing that child's life will be filled with nothing but suffering. No respect AT ALL.

Edit: If you want to know more about the political stances that Palin has, check out ilyena_sylph's post here where she lays out on the line all the reasons why no liberal female should think that Palin's likely to be on their side.

Comments

[a-white-rain.livejournal.com]

Apart from which, you know what? She has no business running for VP if she has a disabled kid.
That was my first thought.

But I disagree on judging her choice. If she firmly believes she's doing the right thing - I can respect that. I respect less the way she judges people who make another choice on what they believe is right.

Obama's choice of VP is 'meh', because for a guy who talks about CHANGE all the time, he went with a really traditional Old White Male choice.
I don't know who he chose, but if it's a person he trusts and respects and wants to work by his side, isn't it important to chose that over a possible lesser person just because they're not a white old man?

[fickle-goddess.livejournal.com]

The article also says that she went back to work 3 days after giving birth. THREE DAYS.

There is no way that I'm willing to believe that kid is getting the sort of attention he needs from his parents, so yeah, I am judging her on it because her choice affects another person's life deeply. If the choice was just hers, or if it involved normal kids, then fine. Normal kids can take care of themselves at least to a certain degree -- Chelsea Clinton seems to have turned out fine, after all. Disabled kids? She is flat-out not a fit mother for one, and I can't believe that anyone would think that being a good mother involves causing a child a lifetime of pain. A good mother should want to spare her child pain, not cause it.

Obama picked Joe Biden. I'm rather glad he didn't pick Romney, considering how he screws up on environmental issues but still, it seems like a very strategic move, just as much as McCain picking a woman is.

Once again a bunch of idiots that don't understand Alaska

[(Anonymous)]

1. If she wins the VP seat she will be making $198,600 per year. Her husband is a project manager on the North Slope oil fields and I would suspect makes $85,000-$120,000, Her kids get the Permanent Fund Dividend, that's $1200 a year -she has five. I think they can afford to pay for this child's special nurses or support (ass wipers).

2. Alaskans have Denali Kid Care, helping all children, not just disabled kids with their medical bills. Governor Palin put this into place for us.

3. Her husband is part native (Yupik Eskimo), Natives get free healthcare, and education here in Alaska at the University of Alaska after 18 years old.

Please don't compare your life with that of ours up here. You have no clue the types of social programs that have been put into place for disabled people in AK. Alaska has the highest rate of FAS (fetal alcohol syndrome), we have special classes for children with developmental issues. At King Career Center (high school) they even get trained to work if they so choose.

I'm sorry your sister passed away. Palin believes this child is a blessing. She has no idea what level of development this child can aspire to, you may be right... he could be a vegetable for all we know. But wouldn't it suck to have aborted him, compromise her ideals, if he winds up being able to function in normal society and live to 55 or 65?

I'm not about to argue for or against abortion. I believe this is an issue that women should debate and men should stay out of. Palin on this one issue is about as right wing as you can get. But she gives so many handouts in the form of healthcare benefits, and energy rebates it makes me wonder if she's even Republican. One thing is for sure, she likes seeing old white guys go to jail, or get fired for corruption or incompetence. That may be one reason for you ladies to like her.

I'm calming down as I'm writing this but my sentiment is still very true. Please don't compare your situations in the Lower 48 with money, employment, health, or Rights. When it comes to Alaska we are in another Universe. Not always better off. This I know for sure, the toughest always rise to the top in AK, Sara Palin is as tough as they come.

[ilyena_sylph]

Thank you.

[fickle-goddess.livejournal.com]

You're welcome! I'm just curious, though -- how did you find my journal?

[lunarwhirl.livejournal.com]

I fully agree. That woman is a fucking moron.

[fickle-goddess.livejournal.com]

I had HOPED for a moment there that maybe she was a moderate and McCain had picked her to show that he too knew how to appeal to the liberal voters but nope. Utterly irresponsible and in no way fit to run a country or even HELP run one.

[mlleelizabeth.livejournal.com]

I agree with you so much about Palin! I absolutely think she made a selfish choice having that child and is making another horribly selfish choice taking this job in her circumstances and yet she wants to deny choice to other women.

I am so glad you brought this point up. Do you mind if I link to your entry?

Re: Biden -- I think that if Obama had chosen anyone other than an Old White Male, he'd have a lot of trouble getting elected and so he chose someone he respects and can work with. I don't have a problem with that and the more I find out about Joe Biden, the more I think he was the right choice for VP at this time. The day is going to come when gender and race don't matter at all in these elections and we've moved a giant leap towards that this year. I never thought I'd live to see this day.

[fickle-goddess.livejournal.com]

I found out about her kid purely by accident when I did a search on "Palin + abortion" and I swear, I had to rant at a friend over MSN before I could even begin to type up a coherent post about how awful I think this is.

Link away! The more people that know about this, the better. I don't really want anyone thinking that because she's a woman, she'll be pro-choice or even rationally pro-life.

*nods* It's definitely a strategic move. I hope it works for him better than McCain's move is working for him.

[ceresi.livejournal.com]

Re: everything you said about Palin = motherfucking yes.

Re: Viden. I actually thought that was a bit of an edgy choice for Obama. Because it seemed like everyone was expecting him to ask Clinton, which seemed like a bad idea to me for a number of reasons -- first being that this isn't Government Camp, you don't get a ribbon and a prize just for competing, and second being that it sounded patronizing to me, like he should give her the spot because, you know, her feelings might be hurt. (I don't know what your feelings on an Obama/Clinton ticket are, I'm just venting here.)

And third, I think choosing a white guy as VP is going to piss a lot of people off. Just think of the visual -- a white man taking back seat to a black man? Following his orders? It's definitely going to screw with a lot of preconceptions, in ways much subtler than a female VP would.

[fickle-goddess.livejournal.com]

Re: Palin. I KNOW. Though ilyena_sylph also has a very good post (http://ilyena-sylph.livejournal.com/299757.html) on actual political reasons that Palin's not a good pick for VP.

Re: Biden -- seriously, anyone was actually still thinking he'd pick Hillary? As much as I would've loved a Hillary/Obama ticket, there's no way that'd happen after all the acrimony during the race. And I hadn't thought about the condescending angle before, but you're right -- a lot of people were talking about Hillary for VP as if it would be some sort of consolation prize.

I'm kind of worried for Obama, though. Even my parents mentioned today that they think he's going to shot, especially if the shooter believes that by killing Obama, he'd get Another Old White Guy into the President's place. To be fair, we're Sri Lankan, so we might be a bit paranoid when it comes to dirty politics, but still... Definitely a jarring visual. I just hope it doesn't set off the nutjobs because DAMN, it is not going to be good if Obama gets assassinated. I will scream. Lots.

[nevita.livejournal.com]

I believe that if you're truly dedicated to giving said child the best life they can possibly have, it's not such a horrible thing. I'm by no means anti-abortion, but I do think that we shouldn't just start killing children because we know they'll be sick. Even if they only live a short life, I think it's worth it.

I agree though that taking a public office is probably not the best idea for someone who's trying to raise a kid with Down's syndrome.

As for Obama's choice, I at least respect him for trying to deal with things. People's big fear about him was that he lacked experience, so he went for someone who had that experience. I don't think he would have chosen someone who would make him compromise his own goals.

Who knows~

[fickle-goddess.livejournal.com]

I think there's a difference between 'sick' and 'misery'. For example, one of my cousin's was born missing a kidney. That's fine. She can still have a normal, happy life. My problem is that Down's syndrome means suffering during a short life. The short life is something of a mercy, really, and that's part of what kills me -- when heavily disabled kids die, the family feels relief and sorrow mixed together, because at least the kid isn't in pain anymore. The idea of a woman knowing that her child is going to endure that sort of pain, and forcing the child to go through it? It's repugnant to me. I can't believe that anyone could be so blindly principled as to not think about what's the more compassionate path for the child involved. It might make her feel like a good person to say that she'd never ever kill a baby no matter what but honestly? That baby is not going to thank you for it.

That said, she doesn't seem to be doing the raising. Three days after giving birth, she was back at work and says that the husband takes care of the kid -- the husband who has two jobs, by the way. Yeah, no. My family had both parents, a live-in nurse, and a live-in maid taking care of my sister and everyone was still exhausted. I don't believe that one guy on his own can take care of a kid with Down's syndrome, hold down two jobs and take care of four other normal kids besides that.

This kid's getting short-shafted because the mother wanted to prove how pro-life she is, and I am filled with RAGE at the thought that anyone would do that to a child, that anyone could bring a child into this world knowing its existence is going to be composed of suffering. RAGE. Seriously, this angers me more about her than any of her actual political stances, none of which I happen to agree with either.

As for Obama, yeah, it was a sound strategic move! My main concern is really his foreign policy (I will never get over his brilliant idea of bombing Pakistan!), but I'm really not sure about Biden's Three Iraq (http://tinyurl.com/58q5cm) policy. It reeks too much of what happened in India when the British decided to make Pakistan a separate country and Partition came slamming down -- India and Pakistan are still having problems to this very day. Though at least none of the Iraqi states could have WMD, since Bush has pretty much turned Iraq upside down looking for them and found nothing but a lot of annoyed Iraqis.

[shay-renoylds.livejournal.com]

/.... So totally watching this from the sidelines, but this is the second (third) post I've seen in as many on my flist.

While I personally wouldn't trust a Republican enough to throw 'em, I'm just... a little concerned at this point at how much media attention she's gotten just because she's a woman and has kids.

Had she been a guy? I don't think the media focus (and therefore, our focus) would have been as much on "oh noes! She has teh childrens! Keep her away!" as it is.

I see where you're coming from -- and I don't think you're blasting her for being a woman who is ignoring her kids, but rather as a parent (and there is a differential there) -- but I just. Gah. It bothers me that as soon as a woman is in a position to be somewhere it's like "but wait! She has a Victorian need to educate her kids! If she does not then who. will."

[fickle-goddess.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I wouldn't care if they were normal kids. Hillary and Bill had Chelsea, and that didn't bother me. Especially since Chelsea turned out relatively well, compared to the Bush twins.

A disabled kid, however? OH HELL NO.

While I can throw my weight behind Palin's idea that a husband can take care of the kids just as well as a wife can, I don't believe that's true if the husband in question works two jobs and one of the kids is disabled. Living with my sister taught me how incredibly draining and time-consuming it is to handle a disabled kid, and teaching a classroom of them only further hammered it home that it takes a lot of energy and a lot of time to even be able to watch over one kid properly full time.

I'm mostly blasting her for having deliberately had a Down's kid, really. I hate the idea that anyone could deliberately cause such misery to someone that's in their mercy.

Out of curiosity, was anyone arguing that Hillary shouldn't be the Presidential nominee because of Chelsea, or is the assumption that Chelsea's old enough to fend for herself? I certainly don't remember people making a big deal of the Bush twins, except for their underage drinking habits.

[sorshawolf.livejournal.com]

Three. Days.

She went back to work Three days after she had this baby. I didn't even get out of the hospital after three days. It boggles the mind, it really does. Not to sound like an old-fashioned anti-women's rights..but she should have stayed and bonded with said child she wanted to bring into this world as an already challenged being. Not to mention the fact that having a baby puts an incredible strain on an already strained and exhausted body.

We won't mention the fact that this woman has done things and stood for things that I would want to slap the crap out of her for. Airborne slaughter of wolves in Alaska. I've already got the rant started for that one...and it's going to be a long one.

She scares me. She literally makes the hair on the back of my neck stand on end to know that McCain could very well die, she could become president, and the very thought of what she could do to this country terrifies me.

[fickle-goddess.livejournal.com]

She also made a keynote speech while having contractions, though that one doesn't bother me because at that point, she already knew the baby was disabled. I've never had a baby myself, so I don't know how aware/conscious the baby is right after birth of if the mother's there or it's a paid nurse, but I'll take your word for it that it's important she should've been there. I mostly saw it as it setting up a pattern of neglect for the rest of the kid's life -- "yes, Trig is a precious gift of God, but Heaven forbid I have to actually take care of him".

What?! Okay, now I need to go check your journal to see if that rant is up yet because seriously, WHAT?!

...I refuse to believe that she could be President and Hillary couldn't. REFUSE TO BELIEVE.

[harmonybunny114.livejournal.com]

because she's too selfish to put aside her own views and think about what's honestly best for the child.

Put aside her views? Put aside her views? Honestly, when have you ever done that? You write that with such glib ease, as though one's views are just clothes we pick up, put on, then discard when we feel they're out of fashion (which can happen, but is thankfully not the leading rule). She has made a judgement call on the value of life and the quality of life the child is likely to live, and decided that living in pain is better than not living. (And given her religious views has additionally probably factored in that life is sacred and god-given and it isn't her choice to make. I don't know what went through her head - and neither do you). While you may not agree with this, many people do. Do NOT be so close-minded as to say that just because someone has a different opinion than you (and YES it's one that affects someone else) she is being 'selfish and stupid, stupid, stupid'.

Pro-choice are we? The women's right to choose what happens in her body is paramount? Yeah, great, how well that view has held fast, hm?

I happen to think that the pain the child would be in would be sufficient to say it shouldn't have been born, but I do not know. There is sufficient uncertainty about the life that anyone leads, the awareness they have, the enjoyment they get out of anything that I have doubts. On balance I would probably come up with the conclusion that quality of life would be too low and would probably abort, but it is not fucking black and white and someone who makes the 'wrong' choice isn't necessarily selfish!

The only thing about your post I agree with is that I don't like the sound of her neglecting the child, though again I DO NOT know the circumstances and neither do you - I imagine as a prominent political figure she is able to afford some pretty sweet help. Oh, and I also don't want her to be VP, but for other reasons.

I do love you, and it's great that you actually speak out about things you care about and raise awareness, but for fuck's sake think about the other side before you make extremely judgemental assumptions.

Part 1, too long for one comment

[fickle-goddess.livejournal.com]

I am weirdly stunned that you commented here and not my dj post. That aside, I am capable of putting aside my personal views when it comes to my sister and I did -- I dealt with the idea of euthanasia for her, even though I hate it, and managed to accept that yes, my parents probably know best about that and my reaction was a purely personal one and that it would be cruel to make her keep living when she couldn't even be unhooked from the machines.

Judgment call there, about what would make me feel better versus what would be best for her.

Whatever might make Palin feel good about herself about having stuck to her views and made a tough decision is NOT worth the pain that the kid would be in. Her body, her choice, and I'm not pushing for compulsory abortion of fetuses that test as disabled, just because that'd be too far in the other direction and there's a HUGE range of what disabled can mean, but FUCK, it is selfish to bring a child into the world knowing you're dooming for a life of pain.

Palin never even speaks about that side of it. She always talks about how "We've both been very vocal about being pro-life. We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential." (http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1144) Or let's look at the statement she made right after Trig (kid in question) was born.

"Trig is beautiful and already adored by us. We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives. We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed."

I get that this is a media statement and she can't be honest about the hell that the kid is going to endure, but honestly, God entrusted you with a gift?! This is a KID. A child! A living person, a human being, someone who is going to face a lifetime of misery and suffering and rely on you all the while and it seems so obscene to me that on top of everything the kid is going to have to go through, it'll be dependent on the people responsible for causing it.

Also, I don't know if being VP means she has such great care for the kids. There's no mention of it in any of the articles I read, though there are photos of her holding the kid and she claims that her husband is ready to be Mr. Mom and they have a great support network of extended family. I still don't buy that. People magazine even asked about it in an interview with McCain and Palin clans combined:

Mr. Palin, you have this tiny baby with special needs. Do you worry that people may wonder if she'll be giving short shrift to her family?
TODD: She's heard that her whole life – the challenges of being a female and mother in the work force. I remember the first time she ran for mayor one of her fellow council members told her you can't run because you've got three negatives: Track, Bristol and Willow. Those are the three kids we had at the time. So when you tell her that kind of stuff, she just gets fired up. We're an Alaska family that adapts.
CINDY: I disagree with anyone who would say she can't do both. Any woman who's been in a situation where they are working and have children know that you give 300 percent; no one will be slighted in any of this, least of all her baby. She has a lot of energy, she's a woman with great drive and great vision.

[adaveen.livejournal.com]

Um... you don't know me, someone who posted a link from a comm referred me, and I have to say that I completely agree with you in essence.

Although I don't blame her for NOT aborting the child, and probably wouldn't myself under the same circumstances (I'm the same age), I think it was reckless irresponsible for her to allow herself to become pregnant in the first place, and reflected even further by her decision to take on something like a VP slot with an infant.

This wasn't a "last chance" scenario - she has four other children. This was not a late in life marriage. This was just irresponsible and stupid. When my husband and I married five years ago, knowing that he was too old to raise another child to adulthood and knowing that my chances of having a healthy baby were slim, we took care of things permanently.

My husband has worked with disabled children for years and his opinion is that children with Down's syndrome are delightful people and I trust his judgment on that. But we were not about to inflict this on any child when we already had children from previous marriages.

And this may sound a bit old-fashioned, but I don't think she should be taking on a VP slot with even a healthy, normal infant that young. I've not had a special needs child myself, but I've had a couple of healthy ones. It's a physically and emotionally taxing process and you don't recover properly until at least 12-18 months. And that's when your young. When you're "old", it's even more taxing. The reason they let us get off sinking ship first is because we have the ability to bring forth and nurture new life. That's important work. One does not take on a brand new job, especially stressful, high pressure, demanding jobs while trying to nurture a small infant and recover from childbirth.

She's irresponsible however you look at it. She's a bad parent, even if the baby was fine and healthy. It was irresponsible for her to allow herself to get pregnant, it is irresponsible for her to take on a high-pressure job while she has a small infant at home.

Oh - and Joe Biden - yeah, he's an old white guy, but he's a very cool old white guy. I'd party with him anytime. He's a firecracker and sharp as razors and with a sterling sense of honor. Joe's good people. He looks like a used car salesman, but he's good people. I'd trust him with my life savings and my firstborn.

[fickle-goddess.livejournal.com]

No worries! Thank you for the explanation of where you came from.

I'm assuming that since Palin is anti-contraception, she didn't actually plan to have this child -- she just got pregnant, and then being strictly pro-choice, she couldn't terminate the pregnancy. Because otherwise, yes, one would think that four normal healthy children would be enough and she wouldn't risk having a fifth.

I liked the kids with Down's syndrome that I worked with. But the quality of their life was low enough that I don't think a woman is justified in forcing that sort of life on someone, which is what she does when she gives birth to a disabled child.

I know there are rumors going around that she's not McCain's REAL pick and that she'll step down close to election time and he'll show off someone more palatable. I hope that's true because if she ends up VP and McCain keels over while in office, good bye reproductive rights.

I just feel sorry for the kid, most of all. He didn't have a choice in being born.

Thanks for the feedback on Biden, and for your comment!

[anniemarie75.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with you - got your link from another lj and I'm blanking on names now. IN my elementary school they tried to bring in mentally disabled kids in our class so they could learn how to work with other kids. It didn't work. They screamed in class and needed more attention so the rest of us got screwed. In a way I understand why they did it, and it was the early 80s soo they were trying new things, but they need to understand that they're called special needs kids for a reason they NEED special attention and more of it. It's deplorable to have a newborn baby with down syndrome and say HEY I want to be a heartbeat away from president, cuz I don't know what the VP does anyway.

oy

[fickle-goddess.livejournal.com]

Ouch to your elementary school education experience. I can understand what you're saying, since I ended up pretty much raising myself since our four-person household (two parents, two servants) was so focused around my sister -- which is yet another reason to worry about Palin's decision, since if she can't even care for that one child, I don't think she'll find time for the other four AND her job as VP. No matter how much help you can buy, the kid is still going to need some care from the parents, otherwise it'll be like putting him in a home and special needs kids usually function better in families, not homes.

Thank you for your comment and for sharing your experience with me.

[the-willow.insanejournal.com (from livejournal.com)]

PS: I didn't comment before because my experience with people with Down's Syndrome is reduced to Corky from Life Goes On. So I have no idea of the range, given that the actor; Chris Burke, could memorize lines, interact with colleagues and make varied distinctions necessary to portray a character.

However, if Palin had decided to give birth to a child after early detection of cystic fibrosis and then went ahead into a political career and jumped at the chance to be VP of the US? I'd probably be feeling the same kind of revulsion you are - because I'm aware of the pain of cystic fibrosis and I'm aware of living a life of pain and the thought of doing that to a child and then abandoning that child to neutral and paid caretakers for one's career...

No words.

[fickle-goddess.livejournal.com]

I was wondering why you were quiet on the topic, but decided that you might disagree and not want to argue something so personal with me. XD

But oh gods yes, that's a decent comparison. Cystic fibrosis is something that you've dealt with and hate from personal experience, so saying it's like that definitely should let you know what a kick in the stomach it was for me to hear that a woman who might be the VP of America did something like that to a child.

Neutral and paid caretakers aren't good enough. Not if you're the one who chose to deliberately inflict it on a child; your child, who looks to you for help.

reply part 1

[harmonybunny114.livejournal.com]

I posted here because I didn't know it was on dj - I generally check lj first these days, and didn't think to go check if the same post was on dj. I thought it would be a little excessive to post my rant a second time there just for Numa! Do you have a preference to where I comment?

Right, on to the debate!

There are a number of different issues here, all getting tangled up.
a) Should she have had the baby knowing it had Down's Syndrome?
b) Would the answer to a) depend on her reasons for doing it?
c) Is she neglecting her child?

a) Right, so the bit I was mainly objecting to was your assertion that she should have aborted. I simply do not believe that this is a clear-cut case. Let's ignore COMPLETELY her reasons for it, for now, and let's ignore the pro-life/pro-choice stances. What you're talking about is eugenics. Regardless of its applicability (or not) with Down's Syndrome, to a certain extent it's a little bit dangerous as we really shouldn't get too gung-ho about getting rid of those who we feel couldn't possibly enjoy living. But I won't dwell too much on that - I tend not to go for slippery-slope arguments.

About whether the quality of life is too low - as I said before, I really don't know. I don't know much about Down's Syndrome, but the internet (ah the glorious internet) seems to be telling me that they can form relationships, that they can get joy out of life, and not that they live a life of constant pain and suffering. Interesting. I've only worked with one man with Down's Syndrome before - and he was quite old, so obviously they can live longer lives - and he was very sweet and mild-mannered. Don't know any further details though.

So essentially I think I disagree with the stance that they would be better off not being born. I'm definitely disagreeing with your assertion that it is black and white - regardless of what experiences you've had, there's enough doubt to sway some people. I can't stress enough that I wouldn't want to be too care-free in my decisions about who should live and who should die - it is a VERY tricky and morally ambiguous case (one which is still being debated heatedly), and I don't think that you should take her decision as indication of close-mindedness.

Re: reply part 2

[harmonybunny114.livejournal.com]

Which brings us neatly on to b)!
b) I would agree whole-heartedly with what you said in another post - that intention isn't everything, you have to look at consequences. An individual is morally responsible for the consequences (where reasonably foreseeable - and that bit in itself is a whole other kettle of fish!). However, intention counts for something, and is relevant here!

If Palin had considered part a) above and thought 'this child will have a horrible life and will constantly be suffering and in heaps of pain', but had then kept the child to prove a point, I would think very lowly of her indeed. Very fucking lowly.

But the chances of it being that clear-cut are very slim.

I suppose we're inevitably going to disagree on this issue because our takes on part a) are so very different, but you seem to be conflating this issue because of her other stances. Key point: not all people who keep Down's babies are pro-life! There are some pro-choicers who would agree with me in part a), and would decide that its disability was not sufficient reason to abort, even if they were ok with abortion in principle. Another key point: not all people who are pro-life are so because of the Good Book! Shock gasp, that too is not a black and white area!

You seem to be taking the end result of 'Downs syndrome baby' and running with 'omg she's a religious pro-life nutter and that's the only reason she didn't abort - how selfish omg!'. It's not. That. Simple.

I stick by what I said before: views are views, and people don't just put them aside. Your example on euthanasia doesn't hold, because it doesn't show you putting aside a stance you believed - it shows you forming your stance. You initially were against the idea for personal reasons (well I remember it!), but then took a step back and formed a more reasoned stance. So that's your stance. And pro-life is hers! I'm not saying that all stances are equally valid (oh no, no moral relativism from this girl!), but I still think it's unreasonable and close-minded to think that people could just go against their moral code because you think they should.

I suppose my bottom line on part b) is that I think it unlikely (or at least I don't think you have a case to show it) that she had the baby despite thinking it would have a horrible horrible life. Maybe she did, but you don't know that. Other women from other walks of life have made the same decision as her.

Part c) I agree 100% that she should take care of the child, and that disabled children need a hell of a lot more care. I'm with you! My point was just that you shouldn't be so quick with your assumptions on something you don't know the facts on. Be balanced, be well-informed, and then rant.

[heroiclife.livejournal.com]

Whereas previously, a Down’s child could be born without the prior knowledge of the mother, going forward, a parent with a Down’s child will likely have made a conscious choice to have that child. As prenatal testing for trisomy 21 becomes ubiquitous, Down’s children (and eventually those with other genetic disorders) will increasingly become symbols of faith – a freak show meant to communicate the “family values” of their parents. The children will become public sacrifices made by their parents for their faith. They will be a symbol of religious reverence in the same way as the scarred backs of Catholics who flagellate themselves, or Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire, or Sunni Muslims who mutilate their girl’s genitals or Shiites who bloody their children’s heads with swords.

Genuine moral virtues – such as integrity, honesty, and productivity are not useful as evidence of religious virtue. To the extent that their practical benefit is visible to everyone, they do not represent the special domain of religion. To demonstrate religious virtue, it is necessary to sacrifice authentic moral values in favor of “religious” values. The particular object of the sacrifice is not important – there is nothing particularly “biblical” about being prolife (the Christian bible just as easily supports the opposite position.) If Christian fundamentalists decided that cutting of one’s hand sufficed as proof of moral virtue, they would be wrong to do so, but not much more so than the numerous other ways that people find to be self-destructive.

What is really vicious about fundamentalists in America is that the prey on the most vulnerable –poor pregnant young girls and women, those dying from painful terminal illnesses, the loved ones of brain-dead patients, — and children afflicted with terrible genetic illnesses. One can at least grasp the moral indifference with which a fundamentalist can force a single young mother to abandon her goals and dreams and condemn her and her child to poverty. But what can we say about a parent that chooses a life of suffering upon their child? If we are morally outraged by child rapists, how should we judge a parent who chooses a lifetime of suffering on their own child?

[fickle-goddess.livejournal.com]

Thank you for your well-phrased response. Really, I have nothing more to say except that I agree whole-heartedly with you and that your prediction of what the future will look like for Down's syndrome kids is scary because it's so believable.

[harmonybunny114.livejournal.com]

Darling? Any response to my comments above?

jerk

[(Anonymous)]

your a retard

Re: jerk

[fickle-goddess.livejournal.com]

Anyone who uses 'retard' as an insult isn't someone I want to talk to.

There lives were not worthy?

[(Anonymous)]

"No one, regardless of circumstances, can pass divine judgment. No one knows what goes on in the minds of the mentally ill. No one knows how much wisdom can come from suffering. Every life is precious."
---sophie scholl, in response to the gestapo interrogator defending the Nazi's gassing of retarded children. (Sophie Scholl: the final days, Zeitgeist films 2005)

Re: There lives were not worthy?

[(Anonymous)]

i'm sorry, but i have to agree with the poster

you would rather have a creature come into existance so they would suffer? That is just plain cruel and even evil to an extent.

If only there were a law that makes people use those "in vitro" methods... along with requiring a license to have a baby

that way theres no need for abortions, nor uncertainty as to whether your child will live to suffer

Sarah Palin Paperdolls

[(Anonymous)]

Basicaly a paperdoll book that makes fun of Palin---Pure Awesome. http://www.booksonboard.com/index.php?BODY=viewbook&BOOK=335600

Down Syndrome

[luckeme.livejournal.com]

First of all, Obama got elected - Yaye.
Secondly, I also disliked Palin - A Lot.
Thirdly, and finally, I do not agree with you on the stance that if a person tests positive for a down syndrome baby that they should have an abortion. The tests are not absolute. You could test positive, and then have a healthy baby. Also, I have a friend who had a baby, Landon, who has Down Syndrome. He has a very mild case of it, and will actually live a pretty productive life. There is no test to determine how badly the child will be affected while in the womb of the mother. Only time and birth will tell. I would have thought that perhaps you would have known this with your history with down syndrome, but perhaps not. I believe it is every woman's right to choose what they are going to do with their body, and I think that if they decide that they want to terminate, or keep a baby that has a disease, it is their decision to do, but if they do decide to have the baby, they have to be prepared to deal with all that comes with it. A woman at the age of 44 (cough, PALIN) shouldn't be worried about having babies anyways... she should be focused on parenting her teenager(who is pregnant), so she doesn't get pregnant! (This coming from a girl who got pregnant in high school)

Thankfully, Palin can now head back to Alaska to take care of her baby. Which is where she can stay, and where she needs to be regardless.

I think she wanted to abort but...

[(Anonymous)]

Why do you think she waited 6 months to tell her parents and children she was even pregnant? I think she couldn't figure out how to get an abortion anonymously. Since everyone knew her ignorant anti-choice stance -> as gov. she pushed it upon everyone w/ears, she couldn't survive politically if the truth of the abortion ever came out.

My husband wanted his first girlfriend (who became his wife) to abort. She wouldn't, they got married. They were miseraable, they got divorced & he got snipped. Now he's a hypocritical anti-choice catholic again (since he no longer has to worry about it). But he can't tell his family of 7 brothers and sisters (none of whom have more than 2 kids) that he got snipped cz it's anti-catholic.

Palin is selfish

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, she spends all this time and money running around buying fancy clothes for herself and everyone else in the family. We never hear what she's actually doing to improve her youngest son's quality of life.
http://tothecenter.com/index.php?readmore=7572