Bioethicists upset that “non-academics” dislike eugenic infanticide
[Bioethicists] Giubilini and Minerva [the same authors of a paper last year supporting infanticide for Down syndrome] are expressing surprise that the Down syndrome community opposes their agenda of eugenics and infanticide….
They would like to dismiss anyone who disagrees with their conclusions as being irrational because we don’t appreciate the opportunities of what they promote. Well, that is all very elitist and pompous, but… [w]hat opportunities of freedom and well-being do they promote that we don’t appreciate?
That it should be permissible to kill new born babies who have Down syndrome….
And there is a problem, because the non-academics don’t agree.
And there is another problem. The Down syndrome community isn’t lying down and been rolled over.
And we can’t be readily dismissed as being irrational.
And the solution? [They] want to change the way they promote this wonderful opportunity that we were denied to kill our babies after they were born….
… [T]here is a serious disconnection between this academic nonsense and the reality of what it means to be human and to recognise the dignity of all human life… the founding principle of human rights, one that Giubilini and Minerva are trying to redefine….
Unconditional love… compassion… acceptance… dignity….
All of those human terms would be a fresh change for the language of the bioethicist who sees those with Down syndrome as “burdens”, “disadvantages” and worthy targets for infanticide.
All based in their own ignorance, fear and academic theory, as opposed to the actual lived experience of our wonderful community.
~ Saving Downs, April 19
[Photo via righttolife.org.nz]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
A handicapped person said, “A baby doesn’t arrive with a 30 day return policy.”
As I’ve pointed out before, once the pregnant woman’s body parts company with a baby, that’s it. She has no further say and the baby is legally protected regardless of how it arrived (unexpectedly in an abortion or whatever) or any handicaps.
Much is being done these days with people who have Down Syndrome. Some live on their own and work. They often live very rich and fulfilling lives.
Heck, if I had to choose, I’d much rather have Down Syndrome than psychopathy. The latter winds people in prison and on death row.
I used to frequent a restaurant that displayed photographs of the owner and his son, who had Down Syndrome. The young man smiled in the photographs and appeared quite happy.
I have never understood the silence by the MMS – why they fail to report on the connection between abortion and Downs or any other “fetal anomaly.” When science is able to detect my genetic anomaly and their own genetic anomaly – I am sure we all have one – what are these anti-lifers in the scientific community going to do? These geniuses will probably suggest that the human race should stop procreating.
“Twilight for the Golds” is about such a possibility. A pre-natal test shows the male fetus a woman carries is likely to be a homosexual. Should she abort or bear the little gayby?
It’s an interesting concept and an interesting film.
That film uses a faulty non medical premise that a baby is merely ‘likely to be’ in his condition? Too bad they didn’t choose some real medical condition. But either way, every human is created in the image of God-we are so much more than functioning or non-functioning body parts. Nazism practiced killing the ‘sub-par’. A barbaric culture, and everyone knows it. Put a pro-eugenics on the receiving side of death decisions, and they’ll realize this is an inhale, one-way mindset.
Molly Ann says:
April 23, 2013 at 12:38 pm
That film uses a faulty non medical premise that a baby is merely ‘likely to be’ in his condition?
(Denise) The husband comes home to tell the wife what the pre-natal tests have shown. He says that there is about a 90% chance their son will be homosexual as they found something that “correlates with that trait.” Then they must decide whether or not to bring to term a baby that will very likely be homosexual.
Back to Down’s Syndrome;
I remember a few years ago seeing for the first time a man with DS who had gray hair. Amazing! When I was a kid their life expectency was supposedly mid-20’s at the most. Most of the DS people I’ve met have been very sociable, pretty functional in terms of basic self care (dressing, etc.) and most have had interests in fun things to do. I can think of two people who’s siblings really took them on as adults and share their own lives and outside activities with them. Parents that can meet other families with DS members can see that it’s not as bad as the doctors make it seem. The solution is for doctors to connect their patients with families and organizations that can offer assistance.
Abortion referrals? Simply lazy and brutal. I would immediately stop seeing any physician who thought the solution to a difficulty is to kill the family member.
As nearly all definitions of ethics involve a sense of moral conduct, I recommend ethicists spend a little time in a universally recognized moral activity to live up to their profession: volunteering. I recommend they start with Special Olympics.
People with Down’s Syndrome are more human and more helpful to humanity than people who want to murder them and other innocent children for simply being different, or unborn. These elitists trying to play God make me sick.
Link to the Guibilini and Minerva commentary below. You can add a comment. chances are it won’t be posted. Mine was not. Read their column: they boil down my objections to Down Syndrome-based abortion as a quaint artifact of evolution, minimizing my moral sense to a matter of biochemical instincts and reflexes. This is quite insulting. I commented that their views are disgusting and they need to check themselves, not us.
http://dissertationreviews.org/archives/3278
someone else try to leave a comment – let’s see if the failure of my comment to stick was just a quirk.
“…they boil down my objections to Down Syndrome-based abortion as a quaint artifact of evolution, minimizing my moral sense to a matter of biochemical instincts and reflexes”
Then the concept of moral conduct and ethics is irrelevant, and the idea of an “ethicist” is empty… rather like their conclusions.
@Thelastdemocrat. Saving Downs and their supporters have been leaving comments at the dissertation reviews blog, they have all been censored. Pretty ironic, given that their blog was about promoting public debate.
Meanwhile, Rita Joseph has written a great piece about the bioethicists attempts to use different language to sell infanticide. You can read it at http://www.savingdowns.com/arent-we-the-clever-ones/