Modern Day Nazis

When I saw this story on Newsbusters a couple of days ago, I was livid.

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.

Emphasis mine. I am going to start this off committing the gravest of sins here. I am going to admit, as a Christian Conservative, that abortion is not my number one issue. As someone who had trouble conceiving a child I cherish every child born and unborn, but I recognize that Roe is the law of the land and until it is changed, there is not much we can do to fix the situation. However, this "gentleman" (and I use the term advisedly) has obviously never dealt with the reality of having a member of the family with Down's Syndrome where we have. My sainted mother in law gave birth to a Down's child almost 40 years ago. After a couple of years raising this wonderful child, she decided one was simply not enough so they adopted another. Our family knows what the realities are.

First off is the aspect that the parents who choose to keep a Down's child is burdening society with the "cost" of the childs life. While both of my brothers in law do get supplimental Social Security Income due to their "disability", there are many other disabled people who get the same SSI that people with Downs do. Does that mean that this person is ok with killing anyone who has a disability? Going even further, does this mean that ANY member of society who is a "burden" to society should be killed? Is he advocating that we should "euthanize" every person who becomes unable to financially contribute to society?

The column wraps itself in the mantle of defending a "woman's choice" but the not so underlying theme is it's a woman's choice until she makes the "wrong" (in his eyes) choice.

The comments were (not surprisingly) spirited, with a couple of the usual "if you disagree with me then you are a hater" comments, but one in particular caught my eye.

By George P. Burdell, on September 16, 2008 9:57 PM

Um, I am pretty sure that eliminating those that are not "economically viable" was an argument of Marx himself. Course, then that begs the question, who will decide what does and does not constitute being viable, or how much money do you have to have in order to keep a disabled child. Also, should we "dispose" of other citizens that are not "viable," say those on welfare and or those disabled in accidents? Actually, I guess, following your argument, they should just kill themselves, to save the rest of us. My head is hurting, going to go get some Koolaid!

While the commenter may be correct in the argument that eliminating the economically unproductive is Marxist, the Logical Husband likened it to another historical figure.

Nazi eugenics were Nazi Germany's race-based social policies that placed the improvement of the race through eugenics at the center of their concerns and targeted those humans they identified as "life unworthy of life" (German Lebensunwertes Leben), including but not limited to the criminal, degenerate, dissident, feeble-minded, homosexual, idle, insane, religious and weak, for elimination from the chain of heredity. More than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will, while 70,000 were killed in the Action T4.^[1]

Following the link to "feeble minded" brings you to this definition.

The term feeble-minded was used from the late 19th century through the early 20th century as a loose description of a variety of mental deficiencies, including what would now be considered mental retardation in its various types and grades, and learning disabilities such as dyslexia

Emphasis mine. Going back to Lebensunwertes Leben lets compare the following paragraph with "life unworthy of 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.

In order for the author to have any credible argument that this is not "eugenics" but a moral choice, then the author should also be advocating that ANYONE who is on welfare or other government assistance should have their children (or fetuses) killed so that he is no longer stranded with the "cost of their child's life". Somehow I don't think that this "reasonable" person is stupid enough to go down that particular road.

All protestations aside, this author has more in common with the monsters of Nazi Germany than he realizes. Why else would you spend this much bandwidth ruminating on one woman's choice on keeping a child that he deems to be a burden to society?