Alaska governor sees 'perfection' in son with Down syndrome

[BigDaddy44]

Source: Associated Press

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) - The results of Gov. Sarah Palin's prenatal testing were in, and the doctor's tone was ominous: "You need to come to the office so we can talk about it."

Palin, known for a resolve that quickly launched her from suburban hockey mom to a player on the national political stage, said, "No, go ahead and tell me over the phone."

The physician replied, "Down syndrome," stunning the Republican governor, who had just completed what many political analysts called a startling first year in office.

She had arrived at the Capitol on an ethics reform platform after defeating the incumbent Republican in the primary and a former two- term Democratic governor in the general election. Her growing reputation as a maverick for bucking her party's establishment and Alaska's powerful oil industry quickly gained her a national reputation.

Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90EECIO0&show_article=1

[hack89]

1. She made the right choice nt

[shraby]

3. And who will do the caretaking when

she becomes too old to do it? A Down's child is a lifetime plus commitment.

[hack89]

4. You are right - the child should have been killed. nt

[bbinacan]

8. I hope you meant to use a

sarcasm smiley.

[hack89]

9. Thought it was obvious.

of course that may be a poor assumption around here.

[Dorian Gray]

95. It is obvious,

especially after your first post on the topic.

And I agree with you. She made a great choice. I realize it isn't for everyone, but Down's Syndrome children are full of love, and they deserve life.

[nodehopper]

85. aborting a fetus is not the same as killing a child

let's not lapse into RW rhetoric.

of course, it is her choice. I would have made a different one.

[hack89]

113. If it is wanted it is a child - mine certainly were. nt

[yellowcanine]

142. Outrageous response. Because someone asks the question does not mean you can just say anything.

It is a legitimate question to ask and parents of Downs children should ask it and make the proper arrangements ahead of time. Cynical responses are not helpful and are certainly not in keeping with a pro-life position. Pro-life means thinking about the welfare of the child after it is born, not just before it is born.

[pnwmom]

10. You really think she doesn't know it? And hasn't accounted for that? n/t

[mitchum]

39. A large percentage of parents outlive their Down Syndrome children

there are frequently other health factors

[tpsbmam]

42. Wow, so by that reasoning all children with serious disabilities.....

should have been aborted? As a person with a serious disability (though not at birth) and a disability advocate, I resent the hell out of this. This is an incredibly difficult decision for pregnant women and their partners and there is no right or wrong here. The only wrong I see is people who judge these parents based on what I'm not sure since you didn't elucidate.

[jwirr]

56. Thank you. As the parent of a beautiful severely disabled daughter

I could not agree with you more. Each of us make our own decisions and yes the taxpayers do help us a great deal throughout the lives of our children. I do not feel guilty for using public resources because my daughter (and me) were the victims of farm chemicals mixed in the water in a rural area. She did not do anything to deserve being resented. And yes these loving children are absolutely beautiful in that they give back double any love they are given. I took care of my daughter for 45 years in our home. She now lives with foster parents who love her as much as I do.

[murielm99]

69. Your post, and jwirr's post are the best things I have seen on

this site in a long time.

This is such a personal decision. But you said it best.

Most people who do decide to give birth to a disabled child consider how that child will be cared for when they are gone. One of my older friends is the guardian to his deceased sister's Downs syndrome son. He has made provisions in case the young man outlives him, too.

Anyway, thank you, and you jwirr, for posting sensible and sensitive things on a DU that has become too contentious and dirty for many long time members.

[ChazII]

83. Thank you

for your remarks and for being an advocate for the disabled. Some folks around here make me fear for those who are different.

[yellowcanine]

143. You are putting words in the poster's mouth. He/she asked a legitimate question.

That deserves an answer. If you are pro-life then you need to think of the child AFTER it is born as well. Read the post again. You say "by that reasoning..." By WHAT reasoning? The poster didn't offer reasoning. The poster asked a question. You wrongly inferred the reasoning.

[tpsbmam]

188. I read the posters other statements on this thread before responding....

The poster's viewpoints are clear, including responding to someone who asked, "so disabled people are less worthy than healthy ones?" by saying "keep your bullshit anti-choice talking points to yourself."

The posters viewpoint becomes clear if you read all of the posts. So you, yellowcanine, are guilty of not reading, not I.

And yes, I most certainly am pro-life. I am also pro-choice. Good going using the right-wing frame for abortion.

[yellowcanine]

216. ??? I see one post on this thread by the person you responded to.

[tpsbmam]

218. Perhaps I used the wrong terminology --

there are a number of posts by the poster referenced here under this article. If "thread" is the wrong terminology....well, sorry.

[yellowcanine]

219. No, you quoted Leftymom and attributed it to Shraby. Not really fair to attribute the

the reasoning of one poster to another. I think your objection to my objection was therefore quite off base.

[tpsbmam]

231. My apologies to Shraby. I think everyone else got what I was saying. n/t

[marshall]

220. It's called eugenics

Strange bedfellows.

[recoveringrepublican]

248. I second this, as a deaf woman this kind of thinking scares me

I can't tell you how many times, when finding out I'm deaf, people ask if I have children. I'm pregnant right now and some of the looks I get are just, ugh, mean. A "friend", when finding out I was having a boy (she knows my deafness only affects the women in my family) said "oh, you must be so happy you don't have to worry about him losing his hearing", ugh.

[KamaAina]

101. Some adults with Down's live independently

as do many people with developmental disabilities, with the proper supports.

Of course, repukes generally oppose funding such supports, even though they cost less in the long run than institutional settings such as group homes...

[AngryOldDem]

133. Got news for you pal....

ANY child is a lifetime-plus commitment.

[Blue_In_AK]

5. I agree,

and since the Palins are pro-life there really was no other decision that they could have made and continue to be true to their beliefs. I admire her for the good grace she has shown here, despite some rather mean-spirited comments on some of the local blogs -- i.e., she should quit her job, stay home and take care of her family; what's she doing having five kids anyway; I can't take MY baby to work, etc. etc. etc.

[bean fidhleir]

78. Objecting to her five kids isn't intrinsically mean-sprited. She has no business contributing

to overpopulation. The person objecting might be mean-spirited, but you can't prove it by the subject matter.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

117. Move to China they limit children there.

[bean fidhleir]

127. What a mindless response. What about the idea of children starving appeals to you?

Overpopulation causes starvation. It's not a complicated chain of reasoning.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

138. So you agree with government enforced poulation controls?

That wouldn't make you very liberal, so you may want to rethink that policy.

David

[bean fidhleir]

141. Yes, I do agree with population control, and would want it guaranteed by

mandatory sterilization after one-half a live birth per person. Both people involved get the knife. And any guy who gets more than one woman pregnant at a time loses his nuts.

My reason? No matter what the whackjobs say, humans are not special or immune from natural law. Overpopulation always means suffering, disease, and starvation. What's unique about humans is our ability to spread the suffering around, til now our mishegoss involves the whole world. What kind of mind would it take to accept innocent children dying of disease or starvation just so some psychopath can have a bigger religion, bigger army, or a bigger pool of cheap labor?

The idea that you, a medic, wouldn't already be way ahead of me on this is baffling.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

153. The idea you would believe this is whats baffling.

What I believe in is freedom. I also believe that nature controls the population quite well, the next flu epidemic or something like it will wipe out a bunch. Much of the disease and starvation we see is because governments use food, medicine and education to control the masses. Your ideas are frightening especially on this forum. The idea that a medic would be in agreement with you is especially baffling.

David

[bean fidhleir]

155. You believe in "freedom", huh?

So, should I be able to drive drunk with impunity? Drive on the left side of the street? Rob my neighbors? Smash in your skull with a half-brick while you wait for the light to change? Poison the municipal water supply?

Those would all be acts of personal freedom, but I bet you wouldn't support my doing any of them. Why not?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

164. All of them are illegal for starters.

All of them also directly endanger the public. If you choose to commit these crimes, that's on you. You will also have to suffer the consequences of your actions, should you be caught. Nice try though.

David

[bean fidhleir]

166. So what? We're talking "freedom", aren't we? Surely you don't think the law should interfere

with "freedom", do you? Or do you?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

169. If your freedom infringes on another persons rights directly,

then the courts have placed limits on those freedoms. Laws are necessary to protect the weak. So as long as your freedoms don't infringe upon my rights go ahead and do as you please.

David

[bean fidhleir]

173. You haven't thought this through very clearly, have you.

My driving drunk or on the left side of the street do not of and by themselves "infringe on {your} rights directly". So you'd agree that they're okay?

Okay, I'll cut to the chase. Your argument is based on the existence of law rather than the dictates of reason. I'm not talking about sterization by vigilance committees swooping down in the night with a pair of rusty shears and a shotgun. I'm talking about proper medical procedures carried out by licensed medical professionals, supported by law.

An individual's freedom, as you tried to point out, cannot be unlimited in a social situation. John Rawls successfully made the case that justice requires that no individual have more freedom than everyone else. Freedom must be divided completely equally, insofar as that is physically possible.

So when the world is overpopulated EVERYONE must submit to having their reproductive freedom curtailed by the same amount. The only way to do that is by operation of social rules: law.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

176. You want to force people to be sterilized, enough said.

and you think I haven't thought this through very well. You driving drunk or driving recklessly unecessarily endangers the public. I never agreed that the world was overpopulated and I told you why I didn't. You go ahead and try to get the forced sterilization thing through Congress and SCOTUS. Instead of doing this why wouldn't you first take away the government incentives for having kids. Make people pay $2,000 a kid in increased taxes, cancel government programs that benefit families with more than 1 kid. What about a mandatory life span 75 years then put you to sleep like a dog? We'll even give you a tax rebate if you die before that. Do you see how silly this stuff sounds? Please tell me you were just trying to be funny and it all went horribly wrong.

David

[bean fidhleir]

178. You're still not thinking clearly

If I drive drunk on an empty road, how does that endanger the public? Answer: it doesn't, except in your imagination. It can't: the road is empty. So driving drunk IN AND OF ITSELF is not dangerous, yet our freedom to do it is curtailed by law.

I wouldn't take away the government incentives BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO PUNISH CHILDREN.

I wouldn't kill people before their time BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO HARM LIVING CREATURES.

Got that?

Those ideas of yours sound silly, for sure. Which is why I know you're not thinking clearly. You seem to have a "whatever is, is right" attitude. You have no problem accepting all sorts of restrictions on your behavior including many that make no damned sense at all, but you apparently get the creeping grues at the thought of a small, sensible restriction to prevent overpopulation. That is not rational. That is not even on the same planet with rational!

[KneelBeforeZod]

186. Clear thinking ...

>> If I drive drunk on an empty road, how does that endanger the public? Answer: it doesn't, except in your imagination. It can't: the road is empty. So driving drunk IN AND OF ITSELF is not dangerous, yet our freedom to do it is curtailed by law.

If you drive drunk on a truly empty road, you won't get arrested. The presence of the arresting officer necessarily precludes the "empty road" defense. Additionally, driving drunk is a danger to people and property that might approach you unexpectedly on an otherwise empty road. Ultimately, there is no "right" to drive drunk (or even to drive at all)... thus the government needs only a legitimately enacted law to prohibit drunk driving.

This is not a situation which is analogous to the right to reproductive freedom. Reproductive freedom is protected under the 14th amendment to the Constitution, and thus no law, enacted legitimately or otherwise, may curtail that right barring a constitutional amendment. A limited government must be granted the authority to take certain actions, and American government has not been granted the authority to sterilize the population.

>> You have no problem accepting all sorts of restrictions on your behavior including many that make no damned sense at all, but you apparently get the creeping grues at the thought of a small, sensible restriction to prevent overpopulation.

This is fairly rudimentary constiutional law and political theory here. "Certain behaviors" are not protected to the extent that reproductive freedom is. Restrictions on random behavior (i.e. traffic laws, drinking, drugs, etc.) that are not protected by the Constitution need not make any "damned sense" in order to be legitimately enacted -- they require only a majority vote of the governing body. Certain behaviors (such as the right to bear arms, reproductive freedom, speech, search & seizure, etc.) require higher standards in order to be legitimately enacted. There is no standard under which a Forcible Sterilization can be legitimately enacted.

Additionally, even if the ability to limit reproductive freedom were granted the federal government, there is a Constitutional doctrine known as "least restrictive means" ... i.e. even in a justified use of authority, a government cannot be excessively restrictive when there are less restrictive alternatives. You suggestion of forcible sterilization is neither "small" nor "sensible". Forcible sterilization simply cannot be legally enacted in this country under any current doctrine or reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.

Z

[bean fidhleir]

195. You are just a treasure chest of misinformation, aren't you.

You have no idea what you're talking about (e.g., the Fourteenth Amendment says NOTHING about whether population can be controlled by law, nor is there any 'Constitutional doctrine known as "least restrictive means"'), but you happily go on unreeling your nonsense by the mile.

[KneelBeforeZod]

208. Constitutional Law ...

>> You have no idea what you're talking about (e.g., the Fourteenth Amendment says NOTHING about whether population can be controlled by law, nor is there any 'Constitutional doctrine known as "least restrictive means"'), but you happily go on unreeling your nonsense by the mile.

I know quite a bit about what I'm talking about. I shall explain both, with citations -- see below.

I don't really feel like giving you an entire course in Constitutional Law, so I'll just hit the high points. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that a "right to privacy" was among the "penumbras" and "emanations" of the "due process" clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution. In Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) and Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court declared that reproductive freedom -- including abortion, contraception, procreation and presumably sterilization -- were fundamental rights encompassed in the "right to privacy" found in Griswold. Thus, the "population control" would be violative of the reproductive freedom segment of the right to privacy found in the penumbra of the 14th Amendment.

Thus, "reproductive freedom" is considered a "fundamental right" under the Constitution. In footnote 4 of the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Carolene Products, the Court stated that any infringement of a "fundamental right" (such as those we're discussing) requires "Strict Scrutiny" before being upheld, which requires the meeting of a three part standard:

(1) The infringement must be justified by a "compelling governmental interest" (which this nonsense likely wouldn't meet);
(2) The law must be "narrowly tailored" to meet the needs of the governmental interest ... i.e. if the law is over-encompassing (which this law would be), it violates the Constitution;

AND

(3) The law must be the "least restrictive means" possible of achieving the narrowly tailored compelling interest (which this CLEARLY isn't).

Your "proposal" meets NONE of the 3-part requirement for the violation of a fundamental right (as reproductive rights were declared in Eisenstadt and Roe) ... so you're S.O.L., Constitutionally speaking. Bottom line -- read up on Constitutional law before making nonsensical suggestions like this asinine proposal for "population control".

Z

[BigDaddy44]

212. Well that argument ended with a thud

Can you spell O-W-N-E-D??

[bean fidhleir]

217. That has nothing to do with this issue

Griswold was about whether the state can force on women the unpalatable choice between abstinence and pregnancy; Rowe about whether the state can temporarily enslave women by claiming that it's acting in the interest of the putative child. They're about the state mindlessly trying to increase the population at women's expense. That's diametrically opposite from this issue.

The power of the community to ration scarce resources is common law that goes back to prehistoric times and exists everywhere in the world. The US Constitution has nothing to say about it.

Nor does the Fourteenth Amendment have anything to say about reproduction. You forgot to admit that.

[KneelBeforeZod]

223. Now you're being obtuse ...

>> That has nothing to do with this issue

I am afraid it has EVERYTHING to do with this issue ...

>> Griswold was about whether the state can force on women the unpalatable choice between abstinence and pregnancy; Rowe about whether the state can temporarily enslave women by claiming that it's acting in the interest of the putative child. They're about the state mindlessly trying to increase the population at women's expense. That's diametrically opposite from this issue.

Griswold, Eisenstadt and Roe were about the "reproductive freedom" aspect of the right to privacy found in the 14th Amendment. The court has explicitly stated that reproductive freedom extends to contraception, abortion, and PROCREATION (i.e. people are protected against forcible sterilization). They said nothing about "temporary enslavement of women", or "mindless population increases" ... they said that the right to privacy necessarily includes the right to reproductive freedom. The Court made no distinction between violating reproductive freedom to "mindlessly <...> increase the population" or violating that freedom to mindlessly decrease the population. Violation is violation, and both scenarios must pass the same scrutiny.

Your proposal would necessarily fail in EVERY respect -- and I am completely confident that it would be a 9-0 opinion, with everyone from conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, to progressives Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer concurring on the opinion. Not to mention the 0-465 vote in congress to defeat the bill in the first place, and there isn't a President in the last 221 years (from Constitutional ratification in 1787 to present day -- including the most conservative and the most liberal) that would sign this piece of junk legislation.

>> The power of the community to ration scarce resources is common law that goes back to prehistoric times and exists everywhere in the world. The US Constitution has nothing to say about it.

"Scarcity" has never been cited as a justifiable reason for the violation of Constitutionally protected rights. Constitutional case law has PLENTY to say about it (in which the Supreme Court interprets the Constiution). Read a book.

>> Nor does the Fourteenth Amendment have anything to say about reproduction. You forgot to admit that.

That will certainly be an unpopular opinion on this forum. Read Roe, Eisenstadt and Griswold -- all three specifically state that the rights to privacy & reproductive freedom can be found in the penumbra of the 14th Amendment.

Z

[bean fidhleir]

227. One last time

...tho, since you don't seem to know what a "penumbra" is (hint: it's not a fancy synonym for "text" or "body") I doubt I'll get anywhere.

All living creatures more complex than bugs are in trouble because of human activity.

"All living creatures" includes us.

One of the magnifiers is our numbers. Were our population 1/10 of what it is now, we would probably be okay. But it's not. And the situation is getting worse at an unknown rate.

At some unknown point, unless we change our ways, we will pass the point of no return and Earth will become uninhabitable by the kind of life it now supports. Hawking thinks there's a non-zero possibility that we already have passed that point. Lovelock says we're teetering on the edge, and that it's already too late for 80% of the people born this century, who will die young and in misery.

Now, there are two and only two ways to deal with the problem of overpopulation. One is to reduce our population ourselves via drastic political changes that include mandatory birth control (mandatory so that it will be even-handed) plus a shift to a non-profit economy for basic life needs. The other is to sit around pretending nothing's wrong until Earth finishes reducing our population herself, possibly to zero.

So, unless you're one of those paranoids who thinks the oncoming disaster is a worldwide plot by scientists to get more grant money, or one of those medieval minds who lifts his eyes to heaven and intones "God will provide" while continuing to roger the choirboys, or a Cheney acolyte whose response to the agony of innocents is "f*ck 'em", then your duty should be clear to you. And that duty is *not* to sit around defending the right of the unthinking to f*ck every living creature into an early grave.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

229. Please quit already, you have had your ass handed to you.

[bean fidhleir]

232. Play it straight. Tell us why you prefer that innocent children die

of starvation, disease, and violence rather than not be born. What about that scenario appeals to you so much? Surely it should be easy for you to explain, if you really believe it. Or are you just regurgitating dogma without examination or understanding?

[BigDaddy44]

233. Well, since you lost the law debate

You can now move on to hyperbole and fear mongering.

In the 18th century it was predicted the human race was reaching the tipping point. And earlier. And later. There's always a chicken little predicting that the sky is falling. And yet, mankind always finds a way to solve problems and move on.

Your solution is to focibly hold people down, stick sharp instruments inside them, and start snipping away. Whats progressive about that exactly? You have lost this debate, and since you have abandoned logic (which wasn't working well), and moved to fear, you risk looking only more paranoid and delusional.

Now if you'll excuse me, i'm going to go eat too much for lunch. Maybe i'll even go home for lunch and see what the wife is doing. Maybe shes, uh, ovulating ;)

[bean fidhleir]

234. Oh, I see. You know that science is bunk, and only you and the oil companies have the truth

Are you really, truly that arrogant?

[BigDaddy44]

235. What science are you talking about?

What science says that man is in imminent danger of mass starvation and death, and that only immediate forced sterilizations of every man and woman on the planet can save us? Why don't you forward that peer reviewed journal on to me so I can read up on it. And what the hell do the oil companies have to do with it? I just happen to believe that it shouldn't be an executable offense to have more than 1 kid (guess what... I have 4....just like Al Gore does.)

I have a suggestion. Go outside. Smell a flower. Skip through a field. Pet a dog. This aggression, fear, anger, and abject paranoia you harbor isn't healthy.

[bean fidhleir]

236. Yep, you're that arrogant. Und damit basta.

[KneelBeforeZod]

237. Arrogance ...

Apparently you've agreed to my legal assessment of the situation, and sunk to the "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!" level of argument. Blah, blah, blah.

>> Oh, I see. You know that science is bunk, and only you and the oil companies have the truth. Are you really, truly that arrogant?

Disagreeing with scientists is arrogant -- but you're rational? Nice.

To my mind, it is far more arrogant to believe that you have the right to dictate to others the quantities at which they should procreate -- and, subsequently, demand that they undergo an unwanted medical procedure to permanently eliminate their ability to procreate at will. That is simply anathema to any idea of limited governmental intervention ... not to mention entirely obnoxious. If the government can dictate how many children you may have and demand forcible sterilization of innocent citizens, there is simply no realm which can remain free of government involvement.

It is far more arrogant to demand that the entirety of the world's population succumb to your distorted predictions about the fate of humankind ... and then demand that they undergo sterilization at your (or Stephen Hawking's) discretion, rather than their own.

Scientists are often wrong (as any reputable scientist will no doubt tell you) -- particularly in long-term predictions about the activity of systems with a virtually infinite number of variables. By its nature, making predictions about future events is an imprecise endeavor -- even when undertaken by Stephen Hawking. I've read a bit of Hawking, and I am quite sure that Dr. Hawking would be appalled at your suggestion of mandatory sterilization at governmental discretion (and additionally appalled at your implication that he would support such a mandate) ... particularly considering he'd have been among those exterminated by the rules of some arguing elsewhere in this thread.

Ultimately, liberty is about allowing people to live their lives by their own values and priorities. If your (or Stephen Hawking's) assessment of the situation dictates that bearing children is a bad idea, I suggest you live by those principles and limit your procreative ability (or limit your contact with the opposite gender).

But, the fact remains that no govermental entity can legitimately seize the authority to mandate that EVERYONE live by your principles in this matter (regardless of whether your predictions are right or wrong). If living freely means we perish, then bring on the four horsemen. There are fates worse than death, and a world where governmental authority is entirely unlimited is probably one of those fates.

Z

[bean fidhleir]

241. Your politics have evidently overwhemed you

The time to grab the kids and the cats and get the hell out of Germany is when you get the first whiff of Naziism, not when they start rounding people up.

The time to take action against any potentially deadly situation is when you first learn about it. Only a fool continues to sit on the railway track once he can see the train coming.

Hawking is on record that we must URGENTLY solve the problems -all the problems- associated with climate change "if we still can". He's saying we MUST solve the problems, not that we should solve them but only if we can do so without upsetting the ignorant, the stupid, and the uncaring. He's saying do what it takes, and do it *urgently*.

Lovelock likens our situation today to 1939, where even many ordinary people can see what's happening but the politicians are still playing appeasement. That seems like a very appropriate simile, given the denial and inaction all around, even here.

[KneelBeforeZod]

243. Agreed, in part ...

>> The time to grab the kids and the cats and get the hell out of Germany is when you get the first whiff of Naziism, not when they start rounding people up. The time to take action against any potentially deadly situation is when you first learn about it. Only a fool continues to sit on the railway track once he can see the train coming.

Agree completely -- I am no fool. If you're ever elected to office (which will be a cold day in Hell if this thread ever gets connected to an actual name) -- I'll be on a plane to Australia well before you start rounding people up and sterilizing them. If you're elected to an international office, your goons with scalpels will meet with a deadly-accurate expression of my 2nd amendment rights. I dare say I wouldn't be alone in that reaction. You can pry my "procreative talent" out of my cold dead body ...

>> Hawking is on record that we must URGENTLY solve the problems -all the problems- associated with climate change "if we still can". He's saying we MUST solve the problems, not that we should solve them but only if we can do so without upsetting the ignorant, the stupid, and the uncaring. He's saying do what it takes, and do it *urgently*.

I doubt severely that Stephen Hawking is advocating for the forcible sterilization of the population. And, in the off chance he is (as I cannot claim to have read every word he's written) -- then he's as nutty as you are.

>> only if we can do so without upsetting the ignorant, the stupid, and the uncaring.

If I've upset you, you have my sincerest apologies.

>> Lovelock likens our situation today to 1939, where even many ordinary people can see what's happening but the politicians are still playing appeasement. That seems like a very appropriate simile, given the denial and inaction all around, even here.

Maybe it is appropriate -- maybe not. Maybe we're careening toward the Apocalypse ... or maybe Lovelock's out of his gourd. I don't know (though I lean toward the latter) -- and neither do you, Lovelock, Hawking, or anyone else. Its difficult to say definitively who has accurately predicted the future before the future gets here. I can say that these guesses (even guesses by "brilliant" men) cannot be held out as legitimate justification for granting the ultimate procreative authority to the government.

What I can say definitively is, regardless of whether Lovelock's a prophet or a fruitcake, no government can legitimately seize the authority to forcibly sterilize the population. As I said before, if that minimal limitation on government authority brings about the Apocalypse -- I'll saddle-up the four horsemen myself. My point is, it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong about the coming catastrophe ... you cannot morally justify a seizure of authority which allows the government to sterilize the population against their will.

Z

[bean fidhleir]

250. "I'll saddle-up the four horsemen myself"

Obviously you and I don't share a value system. I'm not even sure we even live on the same metaphorical planet. I know that I have zero sympathy with the kind of attitude revealed in the quoted line. We usually hear it expressed as "if I can't have you, no one will", followed by the murder of a woman and sometimes several children. How megalomaniacal does someone need to be for something like that?

Years ago, the basic treatment for breast cancer was radical mastectomy, an extremely disfiguring and often disabling process. Then diagnostic techniques got better and surgeons started offering the option of lumpectomy, which turned out to yield as good a result in selected cases at a much lower emotional and physical cost. The victim got to choose, because it was her life. But I have no slightest doubt that, had the outcome of her choice affected all women everywhere, lumpectomy would never have become an option.

You claim that no government can legitimately choose to deprive an individual of his reproductive ability, but you also implicitly claim that you personally have the right to, and would, deprive everyone else of their very lives. That's pretty amazing! That's "if I can't have you" writ large indeed.

We may never be smart enough to stop with the dithering, posturing, and appeasement in time to save life on Earth. But I'll tell you what, if by chance people do come to their senses in time and implement a mandatory pop-reduction program, I certainly hope you are immediately given the chance to die for your beliefs because I damnsure don't want anyone else dying for them!

И с етой бесполезной беседой - конец.

[Dorian Gray]

251. I don't think you share a value system

with many posters on any website in the world.

I'm sorry to say that what you are proposing and advocating is scary as hell.

[bean fidhleir]

253. "Scary"? What about the prospective extinction of all life on Earth?

Does that scare you LESS? Are you another one who'd rather see everyone DEAD than evenhandedly limit the number of children any one person can produce?

I for sure don't understand any such value system as that. Maybe it's another gender-divide thing: after all, it is usually men who oppose the right to choose abortion, who oppose the right of women to political, social and economic equality, who start the wars, and who kill the innocent. Women are conspicuously absent from groups such as the Taliban, and the Thatchers, Albrights, and Rices of the world are few.

[BigDaddy44]

255. Burn the village in order to save it

That's what you're advocating. I think we all understand you perfectly.

[bean fidhleir]

257. No, you understand nothing at all. And that's why this is the last

bit of attention you're going to get from me.

[Dorian Gray]

262. The problem with your argument is that

I do not believe that human life is on the verge of extinction. So... YES. The prospect of human extinction scares me less than the prospect of our government forcing all of its citizens to be sterilized after one live birth. (And yes... I am a woman.)

[bean fidhleir]

264. That's not a problem with my argument, it's a problem with your perception,

understanding, and ability to evaluate potential outcomes.

What are the expected gains and losses if the science community is correct but we continue business as usual? How about about if we believe them and it turns out they're wrong?

The difference should be obvious: if we act and they're wrong, we will have endured all sorts of upheaval and changes and our lives won't even have been in danger. It will all have been for "nothing".

Whereas if we don't act, we get to continue business as usual (and I do mean "business") until things become impossible to correct, after which everyone dies horribly. Does that appeal to you? It doesn't to me. It's too much like playing russian roulette: there's nothing to win but if we lose we lose everything.

Probably neither I nor my kids will be alive to find out how it all comes out. But my grandchildren might be and my great-grandson and his loved ones should be. I would MUCH rather undergo the upheaval just in case that buys them a future.

[Dorian Gray]

265. You wrote:

"Probably neither I nor my kids will be alive to find out how it all comes out."

Don't you mean KID? If not, why not?



You are still sticking to the premise that the scientific world is preaching about the dangers of extinction for the human race. What may happen in the distant future in our speculative minds provides absolutely no grounds for allowing our government to override our human rights by forcing sterilizations on human-kind. It is absolutely abhorrent.

Preaching conservation is fine. Preaching forced sterilization is monstrous.

[bean fidhleir]

267. Yes, kids plural

My youngest is 43. Like nearly everyone else, I was ignorant back then. Only a few people in science knew what was going on. Lovelock had just formulated his single-system theory back then and nearly everyone was laughing at him because they still saw the world in medieval terms: the world is one system, living things are another; humans are a third one, lords of creation. Not even Lovelock had any idea how fast the situation would deteriorate in fewer than 50 years.

But my kids are not ignorant: my oldest decided to adopt; my middle one to have one child; my youngest to have none.

You seem to be confused about what's involved. Population reduction is not a eugenics program, nor does sterilization involve loss of sexual ability. There's nothing "monsterous" about it. *Everyone* who wants to and who can find someone to cooperate can have a kid, and after that a full, rich sexual life.

The time to act is BEFORE it's too late. Suppose the diagnostic tools we have could imply cancer but not detect its actual presence during the early stages. The doctor would say "we believe you have uterine cancer. We cannot be certain at this stage, but everyone who's seen the labs agrees that it looks bad. We think you should have a partial hysterectomy. If you choose to wait, and we're correct, it will be too late to do anything by the time we know for sure. What do you want to do?" What would your answer be? Would you bet your life? I wouldn't.

[Dorian Gray]

269. I'm glad your children made choices about children

that they are happy with, and I'm glad the government didn't force them into any decisions about their child bearing. (Whether it is to have more or less children than they wanted.)

You keep saying that the science is out there and using it as a scare tactic. But that's your conjecture. You have not proven that to be the case, and I do not accept that as an inevitable reality.

[bean fidhleir]

271. "I do not accept that as an inevitable reality"

How can I get across to you the idea that "inevitable" is not yet the issue here? If it were "inevitable" I wouldn't even bother to talk about it because "inevitable" would mean it was already too late for us.

The issue is what's at stake, and the size of the likelihood that if we do not act the situation will BECOME inevitable. If there were only a tiny chance, about like another Chicxulub meteor strike, we could ignore it. But it's much bigger than that, according to the people who have the most information. Hanson, the climate guy who heads NASA/Goddard, puts it this way: betting that we'll survive what's happening even if we do nothing much is "an experiment that we really don't want to perform with the only planet we have". In a talk in 2004, climate scientist Donald Kennedy said "of course there is uncertainty: we are engaged in a large-scale, uncontrolled experiment on the only planet we have." He also predicted that Kilimajaro would lose its snowcap "within 15 years". It lost it one year later, in 2005, the first time in 11,000 years.

Lovelock is of the opinion that an 80% die-off *IS* functionally inevitable by 2100, in part because of people like those in this thread who stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la". He's a rather smart guy. There was only one person in science who didn't laugh at his single-system theory 40+ years go, and that was the biologist/geoscientist Lynn Margulis at UMass/Amherst. Now single-system is standard science. Four(?) years ago, he said the Arctic would be ice-free by 2025; the people at the Snow And Ice Center laughed and said no way, it couldn't happen before 2070 at the earliest. This year they're nervously saying 2030 and maybe even earlier. And the beat goes on.

[bean fidhleir]

268. Or let's bring it even closer to home

Let's say your daughter has just delivered, but is hemorrhaging because of an involved placenta. The doctors don't know whether they can save her unless they do a partial hysto to get the bleeding stopped. She's out of it, her spouse is unreachable in Afghanistan, you're the one with the medical power of attorney. What do you decide?

[Dorian Gray]

270. That's completely different....

that's a medical decision that involves her immediate life or death. And it has nothing with government decisions forcing her sterility.

[Dorian Gray]

252. Also...

please show us how not forcing sterilization leads to the entire population dying out and suffering. I'd love to see some sort of scientific study that would advocate what you are advocating for. Otherwise, you are just posting a lot of nonsense not supported by anything other than your own gut feeling.

[bean fidhleir]

256. There are two basic ways to address any problem to which the optimal solution

is not known. This applies to ANY problem of that class.

One way is to nibble at the edges. Try this and see what happens, try that and see what happens. If the problem is a life-threatening, progressive one, the patient will quite often die as a side effect. But if the patient dies, there's no longer any problem. Pity about the death, but that's life. Or not.

The other way is to do the least dreadful thing that is definitely expected to work in one go. No dicking around, no dithering, get in there and fscking DO it.

The doctor who treated Huey Long's gunshot wound was considered brilliant, but was relatively inexperienced. The wound appeared minor, so the doc cleaned and stitched it. But he didn't do the invasive exploration that would have revealed that the bullet had nicked Huey's kidney. And so Huey bled to death internally, because by the time the doctor realized what was happening, Huey was too weak to survive a corrective operation.

Earth is overpopulated with humans. Rather than chase around collecting masses of data that you'd already know about if you were willing to believe them, I'll just mention the ongoing extinction of other species including our fellow primates and those we exploit for food, the local famines in non-tech areas, the endemic pollution that is causing deglaciation and the growth of deserts.

Of course, if we had a better grade of human, ones who wouldn't go into a homicidal fury at the idea of being restrained from doing whatever the hell they want to whenever the hell they want to do it...if we had such a better grade of human, we wouldn't need to do anything so drastic as mandatory population control. That better grade of human would look at the problem in a calm way and voluntarily do what needs to be done.

But we've got the humans we've got. Most of them nice, decent people who generally try to do the right thing, but who are stuck in a system that rewards bad behavior and punishes good.

A rule in human-factors (psychology applied to engineering) is: make it easy to do it right; make it impossible to *unintentionally* do something terrible, and whenever possible, allow do-overs. Don't put two identical switches next to one another where one turns on the office air conditioning and the other shuts off the water to the reactor jacket. Don't expect humans to be perfect because humans goddamned well are NOT perfect and never will be.

Reducing the population far enough is *guaranteed* to solve the problem. We know this for a number of reasons that should be obvious. There is NOTHING ELSE we can do that is similarly guaranteed to solve the problem. *Nothing*.

What we don't know is how far is far enough. Certainly zero is far enough by definition, but presumably we don't want to go there. But if we choose the half-child process worldwide, that reduction process is *guaranteed* to eventually lead to the optimum population for our species with minimum agony for the already-born. IFF we can keep ourselves in business meanwhile. So the problem then becomes: what steps do we need to take to keep going long enough for population reduction to work its miracle.

That's a much smaller problem. If we can't solve that problem, then we for damnsure can't solve the current one of how do we keep going with no guarantee that things won't just continue to get worse until Earth wipes us out in an avalanche of starvation, disease, and violence.

[KneelBeforeZod]

258. You're grasping ...

>> Obviously you and I don't share a value system.

Obviously. Though, at this point, I question whether you even HAVE a value system.

Your argument kind of reminds me of the "ticking bomb" strawman often used to justify torture (see Jack Bauer in 24, for example). You make up wholesale a crisis which you believe justifies a completely authoritarian seziure of power -- then claim anyone that disagrees with you is advocating the death of innocent children. Blah, blah, blah. You seize on a rhetorical hyperbole, and argue with it as if it was a statement of fact (I wouldn't know where to actually find the four horsemen -- undisclosed location).

You seem to arrogantly think everyone should bow to your assessment of the catastrophe (just as Bush has done with the WOT), and then simply surrender inalienable rights based on that assessment -- which you've supported only with the vaguely connected opinions of two scientists, one of whom (Hawking) I am quite sure wouldn't support your extremism.

The true difference between our worldviews is not necessarily of the value of innocent life (though I question heavily how much you value innocent life, as you call for me to be killed "for my beliefs" at the end of your rant) ... but of the nature of govermental power. I believe government necessarily derives its power from the consent of the governed, and that certain inalienable rights cannot be superceded by government -- regardless of the theoretical catastrophe you can invent. You apparently believe government has unlimited authority and grants rights out of sheer kindness, and that it may rescind those rights if a situation arises which it believes justifies their revocation. The history of tyranny is long, sad, and riddled with the bodies of innocents.

>> I'm not even sure we even live on the same metaphorical planet. I know that I have zero sympathy with the kind of attitude revealed in the quoted line. We usually hear it expressed as "if I can't have you, no one will", followed by the murder of a woman and sometimes several children. How megalomaniacal does someone need to be for something like that?

Blah, blah, blah. You certainly live on a metaphorical planet.

>> Years ago, the basic treatment for breast cancer was radical mastectomy, an extremely disfiguring and often disabling process. Then diagnostic techniques got better and surgeons started offering the option of lumpectomy, which turned out to yield as good a result in selected cases at a much lower emotional and physical cost. The victim got to choose, because it was her life. But I have no slightest doubt that, had the outcome of her choice affected all women everywhere, lumpectomy would never have become an option.

Nonsensical ramblings.

>> You claim that no government can legitimately choose to deprive an individual of his reproductive ability, but you also implicitly claim that you personally have the right to, and would, deprive everyone else of their very lives. That's pretty amazing! That's "if I can't have you" writ large indeed.

I claimed no such thing. I claim the personal right to determine the appropriate number of children for my family. You've made the ENORMOUS logical (a term I use as loosely as possible in this context) leap from the "freedom to reproduce at will" to the necessary extermination of the species ... and then deign to accuse anyone claiming reproductive freedom of willfully furthering the extermination of mankind. I never claimed the right to "deprive everyone else of their very lives", and absolutely dispute the illogical and unsupportable premise that my freedom to choose how many children I have will necessarily lead to the Apocalypse. I simply claimed you have no right to deprive anyone of their right to reproduce. Your brand of "logic" is truly unique. As I said in my initial response to you -- you are a first-rate nutcase.

>> <...> I'll tell you what, if by chance people do come to their senses in time and implement a mandatory pop-reduction program, I certainly hope you are immediately given the chance to die for your beliefs because I damnsure don't want anyone else dying for them!

Oh, I get it -- this must stem from the inherent value you give to innocent life. So, you support the systematic extermination of anyone who refuses to undergo forcible sterilization at the behest of a clearly overreaching governmental authority? How should we exterminate the "reproductive terrorists" who refuse your mandatory "treatment"? I've read that concentration camps with big ovens can be a very effective means of mass extermination.

You're a certifiable lunatic in the most derogatory sense of the word ...

KBZ

[KneelBeforeZod]

273. I hesitate to ask ...

I hesitate to ask the following -- but, really, how much worse could you position in this argument get ... so, what the Hell?

What does "И с етой бесполезной беседой - конец" mean?

KBZ

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

240. That's pretty funny.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

239. I think the Governor of Alaska will be able to feed her children just fine.

So I'm not sure who you are referring too. If you are saying that it will cause other children to die, then you better be for stopping ethanol production to reduce our gasoline consumption. After all we are using a lot of corn that could be feeding people. I will state for the 3rd time know, maybe you'll actually comprehend it this time, I don't agree with you that the earth is overpopulated. Governments use food, medicine and education to control the masses. It is mismanagement and violence for the most part that causes starvation not a couple in the US having 2 children. I'll be happy to look at your statistics on the matter but you have yet to post anything other than your opinion.

David

[bean fidhleir]

242. "I'll be happy to look at your statistics"

Sorry David, if you remain that ignorant in the face of all the data that's been pumped out on this issue over the past 5 years and especially since the latest IPCC release, then you're willfully refusing to inform yourself and I decline the opportunity to waste my time.

Whether you're remaining ignorant because of the dogma of your religion or some other cause, I don't know nor much care. But the fact of human overpopulation is not in dispute. People differ on the question of how much, but nobody except those with an agenda, such as the Catholic hierarchy, attempts to deny the existence of the problem.

Agus le so an crìoch.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

244. The data I have seen concerning world hunger has mentioned,

the problems I listed as major factors war, education, geo politics. So lets fix all those things and see where the hunger problem is before we decide to take anymore drastic measures. Not that your drastic measures could ever happen. I think we should fix the things we can fix and propose things that can be accomplished. If that seems ignorant to you then you truly are as mentally disturbed as your posts portray you. You have made in entertaining though, rarely have I seen everyone here rally against a single posters in this manner.

David

[KneelBeforeZod]

238. On a more upbeat note ...

I think you may have found the issue that could carry the capability of uniting the pro-choice and pro-life movements against a single ludicrous idea.

If this ever gets any traction, I'm betting the Christian Coalition and NARAL would have a joint protest. Dick Cheney and Dennis Kucinich could speak at the event. George W. Bush, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and the ghost of Ronald Reagan would be honored dignitaries and join Scalia and Ginsburg in a chorus of Kumbaya. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakahn, Pat Robertson and Michael Newdow could lead a prayer/silent moment to bask in the stupidity of this idea. Arriana Huffington, Matt Drudge, Amy Goodman, Sean Hannity, Keith Olberman, Bill O'Reilly, Kos and Rush Limbaugh could all carry glowing press coverage of the 200-million-strong protests.

Your certifiable suggestion could be the single act of lunacy that could unite conservatives, liberals, progressives, neocons, socialists, marxists, capitalists, fascists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Scientologists, Buddhists, Wiccans, radicals, reactionaries, communists, the NAACP, NOW, La Raza, the ACLU, the Minutemen, and the KKK/Skinheads -- against the singular worst overstep of governmental authority since slavery itself.

"Dogs and Cats, living together -- mass hysteria!!" (Bill Murray, Ghostbusters)

This idea is truly a special kind of stupidity.

Z

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

202. It endangers other people property which infringes on their rights.

You can drink and drive all you want on your private property. You don't even have to have the vehicle you are doing it in registered. Again I don't agree with you that the earth is overpopulated. That you are posting on a progressive message board is the most baffling thing about this whole conversation. Are you a progressive. liberal or democratic in any way?

David

[KneelBeforeZod]

177. You, good sir ...

... are the textbook definition of a fascist (a term I do not throw around as lightly as some on this board).

Forcible sterilization is simply not cohseive with either progressivism OR conservatism in this country (or in any other free nation on the planet) -- you are simply the extremest of extreme outliers in this matter. Your argument is neither based on law, nor reason ... but on your own distorted view of how people should live. Not to mention the unbridled unconstitutionality of such a law (also violates international law on multiple levels), the complete moral vapidness of the entire idea is appalling. Stalinist, fascist, authoritarian, stupid ... choose your entirely applicable adjective. I prefer the term "whackjob" -- also applicable.

If you don't want to have kids, help yourself (a measure I am convinced might be good for humankind) ... but neither you, nor anyone else, has the right to forcibly sterilize any innocent person (and probably not even any GUILTY person, though I've heard the idea tossed around as punishment for child abuse). "Population control" is simply not an acceptable realm for government intervention ... and the fact that you would TRUST the government to engage in such activity is similarly appalling. Eugenics isn't a pretty thing.

Thank God you will never have any access to any position of authority in this country.

>> I'm talking about proper medical procedures carried out by licensed medical professionals, supported by law.

You're talking about medical procedures being forcibly carried out, without regard to the will of the patient -- that cannot be supported by law in a state with ANY limitation on government authority.

>> John Rawls successfully made the case that justice requires that no individual have more freedom than everyone else. Freedom must be divided completely equally, insofar as that is physically possible.

I've read Rawls ... he'd think you were a whackjob, too.

>> So when the world is overpopulated EVERYONE must submit to having their reproductive freedom curtailed by the same amount.

Welcome to the wonderful world of limited government. The fact is, no one is required to "submit to having their reproductive freedom curtailed" by any amount ... that is, simply speaking, a HUGE overstep of governmental authority under both American Constitutional Law, and international law. It is not Constitutionally justifiable, morally justifiable, ethically justifiable, or logically justifiable. You are a first-rate nutcase.

Z

[bean fidhleir]

179. I won't even bother trying to wade through that enough to reply. (nt)

[KneelBeforeZod]

180. I'm not surprised. (NT)

[Dorian Gray]

222. Too bad

It was one of the smartest posts in this thread.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

201. Nice response.

I see you can't reach him either. Just a bit on the thick side he is. I didn't figure I needed to call him crazy, I thought that was self evident, but I'm glad you did.

David

[kiranon]

191. Just curious - are you the first born in your famly?

[bean fidhleir]

196. answered elsewhere (nt)

[kiranon]

200. Humor me and answer again - are you the first born?

[annabanana]

26. The only right choice is HER choice. . .

No one here has any say in the matter.

[OhioChick]

53. You're Absolutely Right. n/t

[Dorian Gray]

96. BINGO!

Thanks for stating the obvious, Annabanana!

[Azazel]

107. No one here has any "say"? Do you mean we should all shut up?

If you mean that no one here has the right to make the decision for her, okay. But people here do have the right to express opinions about it.

[OhioChick]

109. I think the poster was very clear in their response...

It was "HER" choice, period.

[AngryOldDem]

134. True enough.

But just remember those words when someone here expresses an opinion about being opposed to abortion.

Whatever side of the coin you're on about this issue, the bottom line is to respect the **individual's** choice.

[OhioChick]

192. Good Point, AngryOldDem. n/t

[AlphaCentauri]

272. Abortion is not the only choice, good point.

[Muttocracy]

2. Too bad about the kid's name - Trig Paxon Van Palin ???

I guess the Down Syndrome is not that suprising given her age.

[Blue_In_AK]

6. All of Sarah's kids have kind of unusual names...

very Alaska-related. The Paxson part is a little town north of here where's there's great snow-machining, and the "Van Palin" just shows good humor, I think.

The other kids are Track, Bristol, Willow, and Piper.

[Muttocracy]

7. thanks for that info - at least the siblings can commiserate if needed :)

[Blue_In_AK]

16. I should have mentioned another thing about the Paxson part.

Sarah Palin's husband Todd races in the Iron Dog snowmachine race every year, and in fact has won it four times, so I'm sure that's why the snowmachiner reference.

[LeftyMom]

11. NO mention of the high risk of heart and digestive tract issues.

There's more at stake, in choosing to carry a Down's Syndrome child to term, than just the significant cognitive issues- there are a lot of associated physical conditions, ranging from the mild to the potentially deadly.

She's opted to bring a child into this world who has no hope of self-sufficiency, and who has a very high risk of disabling physical conditions as well. As an older mother she can't make a commitment to that child for life, so she's essentially stuck one or more of her kids with decades of caring for an aging body with a grade schooler's mind. That's simply a cruel and irresponsible thing to do to her four existing kids.

[hack89]

15. So disabled people are worth less then healthy ones?

every Downs child is not worthy of life? OK.

[LeftyMom]

19. Keep your bullshit anti-choice talking points to yourself. nt

[Blue_In_AK]

22. LeftyMom, would you agree that deciding NOT to abort

this child is also a matter of choice?

[ozone_man]

24. It's a fetus, not a child

You let slip your prolife bias.

[Blue_In_AK]

25. The baby has been born.

It is now a child. Perhaps I should have said "fetus was" instead of "child is," but that doesn't change my point. I might have made a different decision than Gov. Palin did had I been in her shoes, but it is still her choice to have the baby as much as it would be my choice not to.

[hack89]

50. Ask any pregnant woman what she is carrying

if it is wanted its a child.

[jwirr]

59. Or maybe some of us are just relying on first hand experience. Not

pro-life or pro-choice issues.

[Dorian Gray]

98. Isn't she a child now?

[ozone_man]

209. The point I was making is that you can't abort a child.

You can only abort a fetus. By wording it this way, the poster gave away his/her prolife bias.

"would you agree that deciding NOT to abort this child is also a matter of choice?"

Right-to-lifers like to give child status to the unborn.

[LeftyMom]

30. Sure, but some choices are irresponsible.

I support her right to choose, but I have the right to say her choice was a very bad one, and will have significant lifelong consequences for all five of her children. Since shes a FFL pro-life nutjob, she probably didn't give the responsibility she's saddling her other kids with any thought, and I think that's appalling.

[Blue_In_AK]

32. Well, like I said, her choice was not mine or yours to make.

And I'm glad because I don't know what I would have done had I been in her shoes. The choice she made was consistent with her beliefs, and from everything I've seen she's been a great mother to the other kids. For all we know, Sarah may outlive little Trig and he will never be a burden to the other kids. We just don't know, so I'm not going to be too critical.

[JeanGrey]

36. Do you? You have NO IDEA if her choice was a bad one or

not, because you cannot look into the future. It is simply YOUR OPINION, no more no less.

[tblue37]

55. The other children might not mind at all. The siblings of people with

Down syndrome often love them dearly and are delighted to help take care of them as the parents age and die. I know I would not have the courage to try to deal with a child with Down Syndrome, but I know for a fact that many people feel their Down Syndrome child or sibling is a delight and are very glad to have him or her in their life.

I also know of many rabid pro-lifers who, when they or their daughters get pregnant sneak off for a secret abortion. At least she is living her principles--something we rarely see in a Republican.

One young woman I know who has marched and signs petitions against abortion actually admitted to me once that if she got pregnant before she was ready to raise a child she would have an abortion. When I expressed my disgust at her hypocrisy, she said that she had a bright future ahead of her, and she wasn't going to risk her chance at an education and a high-paying career by getting saddled with a baby before completing her education, getting established in her career, and getting married.

It was obvious that she felt most women who got abortions were "trash" who didn't have a future anyway, so they didn't have a "right" to get an abortion "for convenience." I pointed out that one reason they had little chance at a bright future like hers would be that they were "saddled with babies" at too young an age, or because they had too many kids and not enough money to take care of them, much less try to get ahead by getting an education or some sort of vocational training to get a betetr job. But people like that really don't beleive that the rules they want other people to follow should apply to them. It's like Leona Helmsley's remark that only the "little people" pay taxes.

So even though this governor is a Republican, I have to say that I admire her willingness to abide by her oft stated principles.

[Divernan]

70. You make a very valid point re negative lifelong consequences for siblings.

I preface my remarks with this. Yes, I know there are heroic tales of families willingly making extreme lifetime sacrifices. No, I am not saying any disabled children should be "killed", as some poster asked. And I am talking about severely, mentally disabled children. My comments are based on what was the norm for the desperate parents with whom I worked on a state task force re care of severely disabled adults.

People may not want to hear this. I worked with hundreds of families of severely mentally disabled children (and the mental disabilities were often accompanied with severe physical disabilities). These were usually older parents of disabled adults, so that they had these children before pre-natal testing was routinely offered - so there was no choice available re abortion. And a main concern of these parents getting into their 60's was that there was no one to take over care of their disabled, adult child when the parents died or became too old or frail to continue caretaking. Because of advances in medical care, many severely mentally disabled live to normal life expectancies.

There are different difficulties for family members at different stages of the disabled person's life. When the children were first born, many parents were advised to immediately put the children into institutions. At this stage a lot of marriages - particularly where this child was the first child - broke up because one parent insisted on keeping the child and the other parent refused. In families where there were other siblings, the other kids had to cope with greatly reduced individual attention from their parents, GREATLY reduced family funds available for their necessities and education, as well as the entire family's lifestyle being structured around the needs of the disabled child. A lot of families finally gave up on keeping the disabled child in their homes when the disabled child hit puberty. Their increased size made it very difficult for the custodial parent(s) to handle bathing, toileting, carrying the child. The other sibs' usual teenage angst and anxieties were greatly exacerbated by the presence of the disabled child - they were not able to/allowed to/comfortable with inviting friends into their homes - or other schoolmates cruelly ridiculed the disabled child. As adults, many of the "normal" sibs either never married or married only with the understanding that they would not have children.

At whatever point the parents gave up and allowed the state to place the disabled in "group homes" or institutions, the parents still were constantly stressed by the penny-pinching and heartless treatment of the disabled by the privatized corporations operating the group homes and their inadequately screened and/or trained employees. When you're paying minimum wage for a very difficult job, you find employee turnover of up to 200% per year. Criminal abuse and injuries were common, along with garden-variety neglect.

Working with this group of parents was a shocking education for me. Their experiences gave me nightmares. Of course the parents I worked with loved their disabled children. But, having observed the emotional, physical and economic costs to the families - I well understand and respect Leftymom's comments and opinion.

And to reiterate, I am talking about severely mentally disabled individuals, often with severe physical handicaps as well.

[bean fidhleir]

146. I was in the doctor's office one day some years ago when

a patient came out of the examining room into the office. It was evident that he was operating at about the 2yo level. But he towered over everyone - somewhere in the 6'2"-6'4" range, with a heavy, muscular build. He was almost non-verbal and his behavior was uncontrolled and uncontrollable. And he was, like any 2yo, upset that he was being told he couldn't have his way. It was frightening to watch since if he'd hit out at one of the nurses trying to get him under control, he might well have injured her irreparably or even killed her.

[woo me with science]

89. I suggest you say this to the face

of some parents and siblings of children and adults with disabilities.

[fed_up_mother]

115. Appalling?

Screw you.

I adopted special needs kids. I guess I am beyond the pale in your book, since my healthy children will be saddled with their little siblings according to your point of view.


What a fucked up world we live in.

[bean fidhleir]

148. You don't see the difference between adopting and birthing?

Adoption is good. Adding to Earth's burden is not.

I presume you checked with your home-made kids before adopting, and explained to them what the future would probably be like for them?

If there's such a thing as a saint, it sounds like you're in with a good chance.

[fed_up_mother]

156. No saint.

Just easy-to-love kids.

[Sweet Pea]

132. Seems to me....

The Nazi's were into eugenics, as well.

Nice company you keep there, Leftymom.

[bean fidhleir]

151. Oh put a sock in it!

She's not talking about eugenics and you should certainly know the difference.

[AngryOldDem]

136. Duly noted.

You would have made a different choice. But how do you know that she and her family didn't discuss all of these issues before the birth? How can you justify being so judgmental? Because her decision runs counter to what you *think* she should have done?

I am just so amazed how the "pro-choice" argument only seems to run one way. Just as the pro-lifers make such a joke of themselves, the pro-choice rhetoric gets a little hard to take at times as well.

[fed_up_mother]

137. Some are pro-choice; some are pro-abortion

[bean fidhleir]

147. I agree. I support her right, given our current culture, to choose

but I agree that her behavior is highly irresponsible socially even though, apparently, ethical within her personal frame of reference.

[Sheets of Easter]

260. Jesus, that's repulsive.

[eyesroll]

261. Say that to LaraMN's face.

I cannot say what I want to say without violating the rules here, so I will leave it at that.

[JeanGrey]

35. Anti-choice? Isn't HER choice ok?

[bean fidhleir]

150. "OK" on what level?

She had the right to choose as she did.

I would defend her RIGHT to choose but at the same time I would strongly criticize the ACTUAL CHOICE she made. On the same basis I would defend her right to name her kids as she chooses just as I would criticize the actual names she chose.

She was *irresponsible* in her choices because she considered nobody's interests but her own.

But that doesn't mean she should be stripped of her right to make selfish choices. Not unless everyone is stripped of that right. As far as names go, I think the Germans might have a good idea: the registry offices will not register names for children that would cause problems for the kids later. No "Moon Unit"s, no boys named Sue, etc.

I also strongly believe in mandatory birth control: maximum of half a live birth per person and then the scissors. Or choose to adopt instead and get a benefit.

[Dorian Gray]

161. Half a live birth per person?

Does that mean one birth per couple? And then the scissors?

Oh boy! This is insane. I can't believe that you are for real with that viewpoint.

[bean fidhleir]

165. Yes.

Putting it on per-couple basis causes problems: A & B are "a couple" and have a kid. They get divorced. A marries again, to C. B marries again, to D. Neither AC nor BD is the same couple as AB, so under the "couple" formulation they could each have another kid, rinse and repeat.

As to it being "insane", why don't you try making a cogent argument instead of calling names?

My argument is that all living creatures on Earth are now in deep trouble because of human overpopulation, and Earth is in the process of implementing the same population control that you call "insane".

Only Earth will do it not merely via humane, even-handed birth control, but by indescriminately killing actual living, innocent children of all species. Humans, kittens, puppies, birds, primates, everybody. And in the most horrible ways possible, without quotas or favor. The result might be the complete depopulation of the planet of any creature higher than bugs.

Do you remember that Pulitzer photo of the vulture waiting patiently for that starving child in Africa to finish dying? Well I don't want there *ever* to be another occasion for such a photo. And if that means sterilizing everyone on Earth after half a live birth per, at the point of a gun if need be, then fine. I'd even hold the gun on my own grandchildren and great-grandchild if I had to (but I wouldn't: they have good sense).

[BigDaddy44]

171. Do you propose a specific government agency be set up?

To monitor and administrate? What if someone has triplets? What should be done with the "extras". What if someone dodges the authorities, and sneaks in an extra child? What do you recommend be done with that child? What if someone has a child, but that child dies. Would you allow them to have a replacement?

If you're going to do this, you can't have loopholes or exceptions. You must be prepared to handle such contingencies.

One more question. Are you an only child? If not, are you the oldest child?

[bean fidhleir]

175. No, I think the existing public health and medical system could handle it

"What if someone has triplets?"

That's one live birth.



"What should be done with the "extras"".

Hugs and rejoicing, I hope.



"What if someone dodges the authorities, and sneaks in an extra child?"

Hard to do that if the sterilization takes place immediately after delivery, as many hysterectomies do.

If there's a problem of that kind, it would come from guys who'd try to beat the system by refusing to own up or by impregnating more than one woman at the same time (so to speak). But I don't really know that it would be a problem at all, given sufficient social preparation plus legal penalties for failure to do the right thing.

The big problem used to be (and still is in some places) that it was damned near impossible to be *voluntarily* sterilized, especially if you were a young woman - and even more especially if you were a young, good-looking, higher-class, White woman. Too many ob/gyns would give you a pat on the head and tell you that you didn't know your own mind. (I was always surprised that so few ob/gyns were found murdered in their offices)



"What do you recommend be done with that child?"

I don't think you've made the case that there'd be such a child.



"What if someone has a child, but that child dies. Would you allow them to have a replacement?"

No, not unless the program were voluntarily a phenomenal success. Otherwise: (ill-)luck of the draw. They could be first in line for adoption, though.



"If you're going to do this, you can't have loopholes or exceptions. You must be prepared to handle such contingencies."

Yep. No exceptions, no dodges, no special pleadings.



"One more question. Are you an only child? If not, are you the oldest child?"

(edit: forgot this question) Oldest of three, but as in my reply elsewhere, had I been the second, and thus never born under the scheme I'm advocating, it wouldn't bother me a bit because there would be no "me" to be bothered. Just as, after I'm dead, there's not going to be any me to be unhappy about it. To care about life and death requires being alive at the moment of caring. Those who were never alive never cared, don't care, and never will care because there never was any "them" to do the caring. (To quote a very famous author: If our ancestors were alive today, the one question they'd ask is "why is it so dark in here")

[AngryAmish]

181. You are a monster

[bean fidhleir]

187. No, but there are monsters around. They're the ones who prefer killing actual, live children

without limit. That's the measure of a monster.

[AngryAmish]

206. Wrong. See #181.

[bean fidhleir]

228. So share your views with us

Are you one of the paranoids who thinks the climate disaster is a worldwide sham by scientists to squeeze out more grant money?

Or are you one of the apocalyptics who's eager for the "end times"?

Possibly a channeler of Dr Pangloss?

A Cheneyist, happy to let nature take its course because you are untouched by the agony of the innocents and wealthy enough to be personally insulated?

Do tell us.

[redwitch]

263. That doesn't sound very progressive to me.

Dear God, A government enforced sterilization program???? Explain to me why you frequent this site, we are not nearly wacko enough for you.

[Dorian Gray]

221. I see.....

[tpsbmam]

44. Are you frigging kidding me???

That is NOT an anti-choice talking point. Read my post above since I don't deem this one worthy of repeating myself.

[hack89]

49. So there is only one choice to be made? That is what choice really means?

got it.

I am pro-choice but do not think that mandatory abortion is the "solution" to handicapped people.

[notfullofit]

67. She made her choice, she chose to give birth. nt

[Occulus]

120. .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbRFDcl2GIA

:D

(Absolutely Fabulous- fans already know which clip this is)

[Tangerine LaBamba]

184. :::::: WILD APPLAUSE ::::::::

Thank you. You gave me a great big laugh with that one.

Well done. Succinct. To the point. And dead right on.

[Kajsa]

23. He's her son, disabilities and all.

If she's willing to take on the challenges-
and God knows, there are lots of challenges,
of raising him then that is her choice to make.

me, I'm
- an older woman with disabilities of her own,
raising a son with autism.

He is one of the biggest challenges AND joys in my life.

[LeftyMom]

31. Yeah, but in a few decades, he'll be her kids' responsibility.

More than likely, they'll have to deal with caring for a disabled child in an adults body for decades longer than she will. It's really not fair to do that to them, when she had a choice in the matter and they did not.

[tpsbmam]

48. Okay, then -- let's not try to save people seriously injured in car accidents,

or people who have cancer or other people who develop other serious injuries and illnesses. After all, they're likely going to be a "burden" on someone.

I hope you never get seriously ill, though the chances that you won't are slim these days. YOU may then be the one who is a "burden" to someone. Maybe your family should take a vote before they decide whether to care for you or toss you in a nursing facility.

Your logic fails me and your view of disability disgusts me.

[Runcible Spoon]

74. that's not a fair analogy.

nobody chooses (suicidal/homocidal tendencies aside) to get a serious illness or suffer life altering injuries. People can, and do, choose to abort or carry a fetus afflicted with Down's or other debilitating conditions to term. It's a question of deliberately knowing that your choice is going to have serious consequences on the lives of everyone close to you in life, versus having that situation thrust upon you.

[JI7]

75. the other kids aren't required to take care of their sibling

[Runcible Spoon]

76. c'mon that's a pretty weak and disengenuous argument, and you know it.

I am very sensitive to both sides of this issue, but in the one case close to me personally, my neighbors had three girls around my age growing up in the early 1990's. One had severe Down syndrome, the older one was caring for her and the littlest one night and day while their mother worked. I don't know what ever happened to their father. She was just about 11 when her mother left her alone to take care of her sister. Not much of a choice for anyone involved. Rural poverty is hard enough. Sad.

[JI7]

81. so it would be ok if the family was wealthy enough to hire others

to care for them.

i assume since she is Governor in this case they probably have access to a lot more. things will probably be easier for that family than many families where all the kids are healthy but are struggling financially.

[Runcible Spoon]

114. it's not just about money

hiring strangers to provide the extra care for the individuals carries its own set of problems. I would never tell anyone to abort a child for any reason against her conscience but it is society's responsibility to provide support for everyone. Unfortunately until we have that support I think people should look at the possible repercussions their choices make. I don't celebrate this woman and I don't condemn her choice. I support her choice but I don't think it's right to glorify her decision.

[Scout]

91. if they are in the uterus of someone else you'd have an analogy

until then, your lack of logic is astounding.

[Occulus]

121. There's a name for what leftymom is advocating.

It's "eugenics".

Shame on you, leftymom. Shame on you.

[BlueIris]

122. You beat me to it.

Horrifying.

[bean fidhleir]

No, it's not, and I'm sure you know it's not.

Eugenics is the attempt to improve the population by selectively refusing particular individuals the opportunity to breed.

That's not what this is about AT ALL.

[Zynx]

254. Part of what eugenics is involves screening out potential "defects" and disposing of them.

This is eugenics by virtually any definition and you know it.

[bean fidhleir]

152. .

(inadvertent dupe)

[BigDaddy44]

51. Hey, guess what genius

In a few decades I may be someone elses responsibility too. So might you. You and I might be 95 years old, drooling in a cup, and not able to function. And then we'll be someone elses responsibility. Why don't you and I meet at the Grand Canyon a week from today, hold hands, and jump off the cliff. We might as well, since we'll just be a burden to someone in a few decades.

[JI7]

54. they have a choice also , she can't force them to take care of her other kid

[TommyO]

73. In a few decades *YOU* may be somebody else's responsibility

Nobody can tell the future, and nobody had the right to tell her whether or not to bring the child to term, or not.

[Kajsa]

84. Now they have many programs in place

helping disabled young adults, including those who previously couldn't,
live independently from their parents.

One of my son's former schoolmates, a young lady with Down Syndrome, who needs
daily supervision and help, has her own apartment and is holding
down a part-time job.

I know her parents are helping financially,( the key in expensive
CA) and they live close by.

As is the case with many PDDs, people with Down Syndrome have a range
of abilities, from the severely disabled to those who are higher functioning.

Chris Burke, who played Corky on 'Life Goes On' is a good example
of the latter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Burke_%28actor%29


We really don't know how much her son will be capable of.

I do know this, a strong support system at home and the least
restrictive environment, educationally will help him immensely.

[Ilsa]

215. Those programs have waiting lists upt to twelve years long where I live.

I know because we are having to place our disabled child's name on one and he isn't even a dozen years old.

Don't assume the safety will be there. Reagan made sure it wasn't available for peaple with mental illness. He cut funding and metal hospitals turned out mentally ill people into the streets, literally. One third of the homeless in the 1980's were the mentally ill.

PArt of Lefty Mom's point is the same as yours: we don't know how severe the disability can be mentally or physically for Downs babies.

Still, I am glad that it was the woman's choice, not the govt's to make her have or make her abort the fetus.

[pitohui]

93. no he WON'T be her kid's responsibility

actually no adult is required to take on responsibility of another adult sibling

i could not afford to take on a sibling if they were to become senile or brain damaged and the law can not compel me to do so

i am not large enough, strong enough, or rich enough to care for another adult in that situation, and that's the end of the matter -- i am only compelled by law to care for my spouse (who i chose) and my underage children, siblings don't become my child merely by virtue of being my siblings and having a damaged brain

now if one of the kids wants to play hero and voluntarily takes on care of a large helpless "child" in a difficult to manage adult's body, well, they made a choice, maybe a bad choice, maybe a choice made because they don't have the gonads to look like the bad guy, but they still made the choice

i certainly wouldn't deliberately bring a down's syndrome child into the world, i think it's cruel and more about the mom trying to look like a hero than caring about the suffering of a life lived by someone who can never understand why they can't have the life everyone else has -- but i guess cruel people who want to look like heroes in the press are still allowed to reproduce in this society

[FedUpWithIt All]

104. Two points...

The other children will have choices too. Not all siblings CHOOSE to care for relatives in need situations.

The second point is that any number of circumstances could lead to adult children having to possibly make sacrifices for loved ones, including the care of a parent. We all have various burdens in life.

[kiranon]

193. What do you say to people who adopt special needs children?

I adopted 2 special needs children. Is that a mistake in your eyes? It is not in mine. They have more love and compassion than I have seen from many on this board. Who is to say that they will not contribute more to society than anyone on this board.

[JeanGrey]

34. What do you mean, no hope of self sufficiency? How do you

know that? There are different levels of functioning ability. Just because he has Downs doesn't mean he will never take care of himself.

[jwirr]

57. No- hope of self-sufficiency? Where have you been living? Most

disabled person today have jobs and pay as much of their own way as they can. Many that I know actually make enough a month that they are having trouble keeping their medical assistance.

[dflprincess]

64. Down Syndrome has a wide range of disablilty

both physical and mental. It is not impossible that this child will be able to take care of himself.

My grandmother's youngest sister had Down Syndrome. She was born in 1901 when Down kids were often institutionalized, but she was kept at home with her family. She learned to read and write a little because her sisters used her as their "student" when they played school though she never actually went to school. She was able to cook, clean and sew and my grandmother had enough faith in her that she would let her babysit my mom and her siblings when they were little. This was all without formal training. I'm sure if they had had the programs then that they have now she would have been able to live independently. She died of heart failure when she was 66 (young for my mom's family) so she apparently did not have some of the physical problems Down Syndrome people can have.

And of all my mother's aunts, she was my favorite. I guess because she was the only one who seemed to like playing with us kids. We all knew she was different from the other adults, but I don't think we ever thought much about it. Somehow, from a very early age we were all drawn in to the web of love and protection that had always surrounded her.

The problem with genetic tests is that it can tell you the child will have Down Syndrome, but it can't tell you how affected the child will be by it.

[pitohui]

94. this is true, i used to know a down's syndrome woman who could write very well

she had difficulty speaking and pronouncing words, and she was unable to walk, thus in a wheelchair, but fortunately she was able to write very well and at length, i am not talking about just a few words here and there, but she was involved in a science fiction fandom and was able to write at length for the fanzines, newsletters, and so on

the brain is a mysterious thing, and despite her trouble speaking/walking i could not see how this woman could be classed as "retarded"

it is realistic to point out that this is probably a very unusual outcome for a down's syndrome patient tho, the others i've met have had pretty severe cognitive deficiencies

[KamaAina]

102. I used to *supervise* a woman with Down's

at my office. Yes, she was working. For pay and everything. :P

The only thing about her writing was, everything was one big run-on sentence. Period meant end of paragraph. Eventually I realized that she wasn't "retarded" (the R-word is considered offensive by people with developmental disabilities) so much as learning disabled.

[CountAllVotes]

92. I agree w/you LeftyMom!!!

You are so right, the other children WILL pay the price in the end. They'll find that most of the attention and needed help that a parent provides will simply not be there for them. They'll be dust in the wind.

I think it is dumb to have a kid that you know will be born all messed up. Period.

:dem:

[Zynx]

225. Define "all messed up". If we could determine a child would have OCD

should we just get rid of them too? How about Asperger's? Does that fit into the real of "all messed up"? If it does, fuck you because that includes my brother.

[Dorian Gray]

97. Tell that to my friend

who loves and cares for her Down's Syndrome sister with all her heart.

[bitchkitty]

99. Damn, woman, you are COLD.

Glad I wasn't born to you!

[sandyd921]

211. Inaccurate perceptions about Down syndrome

"She's opted to bring a child into this world who has no hope of self-sufficiency"

Individuals with Down syndrome have a range of ability levels. With a foundation of good early intervention services and educational programs, many adults with Down syndrome go on to live productive, independent, and fulfilling lives. Also, with appropriate medical care most children and adults with Down syndrome live healthy lives.

I suggest researching the topic before you make blanket stereotypic and blatantly wrong-headed statements about something you don't have direct knowledge of.

[Zynx]

224. A person born with Down's is just as treasured as you are.

To hell with this eugenics crap.

[HockeyMom]

12. She is very fortunate that it was only Downs

Where I used to work, the Downs people were the cream of the crop.

There are far more severe physical and mental disabilities than Downs. Most people would be shocked to see what "mother nature" can do.

[mitchum]

43. I an a special ed teacher (that probably shocks many here)...

and I can attest that they are generally both the sweetest and hardest working of individuals in the moderate intellectual disability range.

[LibDemAlways]

63. I'm a substitute teacher and have been called upon to

take over special ed classes at the local middle school. I have to say the sweetest, kindest child I've come across there is a 6th grade girl with Down Syndrome. She puts her classmates to shame in the "nice" category, and any parent would be proud to call her their daughter.

[BigDaddy44]

65. I get the feeling LeftyMom isn't volunteering to teach any special ed kids

Her "tolerance" is underwhelming.

[Kajsa]

87. I substitute teach also.

My favorite assignments are the Special Day classes.

:) :hi:

[Divernan]

90. Why did she have testing for birth defects unless there was a possibility of abortion?

As you point out, there are far more severe physical and mental disabilities than Downs. Some of them are particularly cruel for the child, since they involve constant physical pain which cannot be controlled and very short life expectancies - ranging from several months to a few years. Although the US govt. officially denies the effect of depleted uranium on US soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan, (for fear of being charged with war crimes against civilians) research has established that among other deadly effects such as cancer clusters, depleted uranium has profound and debilitating affect on DNA and causes extreme birth defects.

There is a major difference between opting to continue a pregnancy with a Downs syndrome child, and a child with far worse disabilities.

I admire Sarah Pallin's performance as governor and I expect she'll have the financial means to provide a lifelong good home and care for her 5th child. I note that her husband took a leave from his job when she became Governor, which indicates their kids are getting a lot of direct parenting. I'm sure they also have excellent health insurance coverage. The fact is of course that many parents have to both work, have minimal or no health insurance, and have to stretch their budget to afford one or two relatively healthy children.

[AngryAmish]

139. Some birth defects present possibility of harm to the mother

Plus the Rh testing can prevent harm to the baby.

[kiranon]

203. Because some problems can be solved in utero or right after birth

[roody]

13. She has many options that poor people do not have.

[iaviate1]

14. She sees perfection in a Down Syndrome fetus...

But is anti-gay. Go figure. Another hypocritical fool.

[Blue_In_AK]

18. One positive thing about Sarah, though,

is that she hasn't so far tried to cram her personal religious beliefs down other people's throats, which was something I feared when she was elected. In fact, she let stand our Supreme Court's ruling that state employees in same-sex relationships should have equal benefits, much to the disgust of many of the more conservative groups in the state.

Here's Wikipedia on the subject

Palin is strongly pro-life and belongs to Feminists for Life.<4> She opposes same-sex marriage, but has gay friends and has otherwise been receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination.<17> While the previous administration did not implement same-sex benefits, Palin followed an Alaska Supreme Court order and signed them into law. <18>

She supported a democratic advisory vote from the public on whether there should be a constitutional amendment on the matter.<19> Alaska was one of the first states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage, in 1998, along with Hawaii.<20>

Palin's first veto was used on legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to gay state employees and their partners. In effect, her veto granted State benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with her attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation.<21>

[KamaAina]

103. Feminists for Life is scary (as well as oxymoronic)

Its maximum leader, Susan Carpenter McMillan, oozed into the national spotlight as -- Paula Jones' mouthpiece. :puke: 'Nuf ced.

[Blue_In_AK]

105. Oh, I know that ...

Sarah is just kind of a mixed bag. I certainly have my issues with her, particularly on social issues, but on many other things I think she's doing a wonderful job. As I said, so far she hasn't tried to cram her social agenda down our throats, and for that I give her kudos. I guess like a lot of people, she is complex. As much as I try not to like her, I can't help but admire a lot of positions that she has taken here, particularly with respect to the corrupt members of her own party.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

185. Consider this:

What if the kid grows up to be gay?

[jmowreader]

17. Sarah Palin kinda worries me

Putting her on the GOP ticket would humanize McSame. She's also got a higher approval rating among Alaskan Democrats than she does among Alaskan Republicans. And at risk of being attacked by the 'how dare you point out a woman's appearance" faction of the Democratic party, Sarah Palin is DAMN cute!

[Blue_In_AK]

20. She has said repeatedly here within the state

that she has no interest in leaving to be VP, but you are right, she is very popular here, with something like an 85% approval rating, and most of the bitching about her is coming from the far right. She has been relentless in taking on Big Oil in the state and rooting out the Corrupt Bastards ... and she has no problem at all strongly disagreeing with Ted Stevens and Don Young. I really like that about her.

And, yes, she's cute and a very pleasant, down-to-earth person. I met her right before the election in 2006 when we were all standing on a busy corner here with our signs -- hers for herself, of course, and mine supporting Diane Benson for Congress. She's very approachable.

[StevieM]

119. I don't know if she'll be McCain's running mate, but I'm already hearing talk about her as a future

Republican presidential candidate. Her and Boby Jindall, the governor of Lousiana, are two names that have been mentioned recently. I think that Martin O'Malley is the Democratic counterpart to those two. We'll see if any of them ever make it to a national ticket.

I must confess, I could see Palin doing very well in a state like New Hampshire.

Steve

[Blue_In_AK]

124. We've kind of wondered if she'll run for Lisa Murkowski's

Senatorial seat in 2010 rather than taking a second gubernatorial term. My guess is whatever she runs for here, she'll be elected. I don't think I've seen such a popular politician up here -- across party lines -- since Governor Jay Hammond. Sarah's taken a few stances that I completely disagree with -- the polar bear thing, for one, and aerial wolf killing -- but, by and large, I think she's doing a good job. We appreciate her especially coming after Frank Murkowski -- who left office as the most unpopular governor in the country.

[southern_belle]

21. Good for her! She has an angel.

My Down's syndrome nephew who is now 29 years old is so very special - he's a gift from God. The joy we get from him on a daily basis can't be overstated. We love him and feel lucky to know such a special person. People are brought into our lives for special reasons, and we all are learning so much from him. I love you, Perry. :hug:

[Number23]

45. That's beautiful

The joy we get from him on a daily basis can't be overstated.

I'm glad that your family takes such joy in your nephew. I don't know what in God's name is wrong with some people. Actually criticizing a woman for HAVING her Down Syndrome diagnosed child, as if they are the ones who will be asked to take care of him.

I have never thought that being pro-choice meant not only aborting unwanted children, but also ones who ARE wanted but won't be perfect. That woman's choice is hers and hers alone. She seems happy and her child is loved. I don't see how anyone could have a problem with that.

[Blue_In_AK]

46. That's exactly right.

When I first heard the news that the Governor's baby had Down's, I felt sad and sorry, but then when the family seemed so happy, it was hard to stay negative. I wish them the best.

[BigDaddy44]

52. Not according to some here

They think he's only a burden and that it was irresponsible to even have him. (amazing, huh?)

[fascisthunter]

27. Okay... here's a cookie

Not sure why this is even a story but let me make a point. Liberals, progressives and Democrats are not pro-abortion so for those portending that we are, stop with the lame attempt in painting us as so. The stereotype is getting really really old.

Pro-Choice is not Pro-Abortion

It's good to see the Governor still has a choice, no? Thanks....

[Rage for Order]

58. I wouldn't be so sure about that

"Liberals, progressives and Democrats are not pro-abortion..."

You should read some of LeftyMom's posts in this thread.

Post #11: "She's opted to bring a child into this world who has no hope of self-sufficiency, and who has a very high risk of disabling physical conditions as well...she's essentially stuck one or more of her kids with decades of caring for an aging body with a grade schooler's mind. That's simply a cruel and irresponsible thing to do to her four existing kids."

Post #30: I support her right to choose, but I have the right to say her choice was a very bad one, and will have significant lifelong consequences for all five of her children. Since shes a FFL pro-life nutjob, she probably didn't give the responsibility she's saddling her other kids with any thought, and I think that's appalling.

Post #31: More than likely, they'll have to deal with caring for a disabled child in an adults body for decades longer than she will. It's really not fair to do that to them, when she had a choice in the matter and they did not.


It appears LeftyMom is strongly pro-choice, as long as your choice is abortion. Otherwise you're an irresponsible pro-life nutjob. :eyes:

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. LeftyMom will defend to the death...

...your right to make the same choices she does.

[Sock Puppet]

259. ...

:applause:

[fascisthunter]

66. One Does Not Represent All of Us

Like I said... no stereotyping. Just keepin' it real.

And I can't speak for her.....

[Runcible Spoon]

77. oh please, that's not entirely fair.

I am defending LeftyMom with some reservation since I don't normally agree with her, but you are being horribly unfair in your representation of what she actually said. I don't think LEftyMom would be for ANY legislation or pressure period on the choice of womwen to abort or carry a fetus to term. However she IS entitled to think that it's irresponsible and short-sighted as the fact remains the child will most likely outlive her and the choices are for the family to take over care or institutionalization for the individual. Neither is an easy choice.

I may think that you stuffing your body with McDonald's everyday, smoking 20 packs of cigarettes and drinking a gallon of Jim Beam a day is horrifying, irresponsible, and may some day mean that you end up with debilitating health issues that may make you dependent upon your family/institutionalization, but I certainly would NEVER suggest a limitation on your ability to buy or consume these items. Ain't America great.

[fshrink]

28. And illness is a miracle.

And black is white and vice-versa. And Bush is a hero. And genetic testing is bad and bad is good and vice-versa. We might as well grunt than use words.

[Blue_In_AK]

29. And if you're not perfect, you don't deserve to live.

:sarcasm:

[kestrel91316]

33. If you're pregnant, it's YOUR right to decide.

NOBODY else's.

No fetus ever gets preference over a woman's right to decide whether or not to carry it to term. Hate to burst your rose-colored balloon.

[Blue_In_AK]

38. Huh?

I don't have any balloons, rose-colored or otherwise, and I can't quite make sense of your post, but that's okay.

The point being, it was Sarah Palin's and her husband's choice to make whether or not to carry the baby to term. They chose to. I might not have, you might not have, but it wasn't our decision to make. To me, pro-choice means pro-choice ... choice implies options. They made theirs.

[Kajsa]

86. Didn't the Nazis repeat that ad nauseum,

and carry it out in the gas chambers?

Oh YES!

Disabled people were NOT part of Hitler's
ideal society and his 'Final Solution' was to kill them.

:(

[defendandprotect]

37. Interesting article and there's a lot to admire her for ...

other parents of children with "Down's Syndrome" have taken us over the highest hurdles of discrimination against their children and I think we all understand better now the handicaps
and blessings of these children --- for parents who can accept them!

These people made the right decision for themselves --
however, another "pro-life" couple may make a different decision should they be faced with
something like this. Just as a "pro-choice" couple may actually decide that they could and
would want to continue a pregnancy like this.

We don't know what anyone will decide --- that's why CHOICE is the key.

[defendandprotect]

40. PS: Just want to add that ...

these parents are, of course, well equipped by education, career, financial situation to take
on a burden like this.

Other parents may have the child and give it up for adoption?

And . . . I was just reading a story recently about ARTHUR MILLER, the playwright ...

Evidently, in a marriage after Marilyn Monroe he and his wife had a beautiful daughter and
then a few years later they had a son with Down's Syndrome. I'm going to say "shockingly" ...
he forced his wife to institutionalize the child -- and he never acknowledged this son, until
the end of his life when he made him equal in inheritance.
... however, being familiar with those times, I know it was a decision that many were still
making based on doctor's advice, custom, etc.

It made me think more harshly of Miller, while at the same time understanding that had this
happened to me back then --- this was early 1970's -- that I might have followed doctor's advice.
In other words, I'm disappointed in both Miller and myself because so many wonderful parents came
along and showed us the magic of these children.

I also agree that there is the other dimension of making the decision keeping in mind the
entire family and what that means for all of them.
Evidently, Miller was very concerned about his daughter -- they treasured her --- a beautiful
young girl who's life he was concerned about should they keep the new child at home.
Miller had some experience with this in his family where ... I think it was a niece ... his
sister's child/? was born with Down's Syndrome. Evidently the parents did not cope well with
the situation and it brought misery to the family and the child.

[jwirr]

61. I was very lucky because the doctors who diagnosed my daughter

at the University of Iowa told me exactly what would happen to her in an institution and advised me to keep her at home. The short live expectancy she would have had in the institution has now gone almost 20 years beyond the 30 she was supposed to live. Between us, we have led the way in some of the newer medical processes used to make life better for all disabled persons.

[defendandprotect]

68. Don't know if you read my comments about Arthur Miller . . .

However, evidently the institution he put his son in was glorious and then deteriorated and
it is said of it that you wouldn't house a dog in a place like that....

but supposedly the child was a delight --- everyone loved him --!

And I think he survives now and was adopted ---

[Hekate]

41. I believe a woman also has the right to say yes & choose to carry a pregnancy to term.

That's the meaning of "choice". Women are moral agents with authority over their own consciences and responsibility for their own choices. Every month from menarche to menopause we say "yes" and "no" by our actions and inactions. And we live with that. Because we are fully human.

I support a woman's right to choose. Period.

Hekate

[Number23]

47. 'Nuff said

I support a woman's right to choose. Period.

[Midlodemocrat]

60. I'm shocked at the ignorance on this thread. Absolutely shocked.

Although I probably shouldn't be.

WELCOME TO HOLLAND
By
Emily Perl Kingsley

I am often asked to describe the experience of raising a child with a disability - to try to help people who have not shared that unique experience to understand it, to imagine how it would feel. It's like this...

When you're going to have a baby, it's like planning a fabulous vacation trip - to Italy. You buy a bunch of guide books and make your wonderful plans. The coliseum. The Michelangelo David. The gondolas in Venice. You may learn some handy phrases in Italian. It's all very exciting.

After months of eager anticipation, the day finally arrives. You pack your bags and off you go. Several hours later, the plane lands. The stewardess comes in and says, "Welcome To Holland".

"Holland?!?" you say, "What do you mean "Holland"??? I signed up for Italy! I'm supposed to be in Italy. All my life I've dreamed of going to Italy"

But there's been a change in the flight plan. They've landed in Holland and there you must stay.

The important thing is that they haven't taken you to a horrible, disgusting, filthy place, full of pestilence, famine and disease. It's just a different place.

So you must go and buy new guide books. And you must learn a whole new language. And you will meet a whole new group of people you would never have met.

It's just a different place. It's slower-paced than Italy, less flashy than Italy. But after you've been there for a while and you catch your breath, you look around…and you begin to notice that Holland has windmills...Holland has tulips. Holland even has Rembrandts.

But everyone you know is busy coming and going from Italy...and they're all bragging about what a wonderful time they had there. And for the rest of your life, you will say "Yes that's where I was supposed to go. That's what I had planned".

And the pain of that will never, ever, ever, ever go away...because the loss of that dream is a very significant loss.

But...if you spend your life mourning the fact that you didn't get to Italy, you may never be free to enjoy the very special, the very lovely things...about Holland.

And, it is DOWN Syndrome, not Down's.

[Hekate]

71. That's one of my favorite essays of all time. Thank you for posting it...

Just one thing though -- please put a line between the end of Kingsley's thoughts and your own assertion about Down's/Down. It was very jarring.

Down's is apparently the way the Brits say it, so it is correct somewhere in the world. ;-) And I'm not surprised at the way some of us Americans say it -- the "s" from "syndrome" runs into the first word. Furthermore, since it's named after John Langdon Down, the British doctor who described the syndrome in 1866, I don't know why we don't use the possessive form as well.

Just call me a picky grammarian.

Whatever we call the syndrome, Down or Down's, it's a damn sight better designation that the one used in my childhood -- Mongoloid idiot. Sometimes things really do change dramatically for the better.

Thanks again for the essay. When I first read it years ago it opened my heart wide and was the perfect antidote to the pain of having grown up hearing other human children called Mongoloid idiots. :hi:

Hekate

[Midlodemocrat]

79. Having years of experience in working with children with Down Syndrome,

what I usually see/hear is the ignorant calling it Down's. You can't even begin to imagine how badly that pisses off the people who have a loved one with it. It smacks of ignorance.

It's called Down Syndrome for the same reason other Syndromes are often not the possessive. John Langdon Down named it, he doesn't own it.

[Hekate]

100. Interesting shift. I just checked on Hansen's disease and found that Leprosy has also changed...

... its name to the non-possessive. Sort of, and by no means completely. I wonder if it is a modern American/British split in usage and when it started.

I'm not that ancient really, but at 60 I've lived through several iterations of what is considered scientifically correct/academically correct/socially correct/polite/kind/politically correct to call differing groups of people. I try to keep up.

I also went through my entire life referring to years as being A.D. or B.C., which may have been near-universal, but is indubitably a Christian designation. I returned to graduate school in 1994 and discovered that the world had changed -- the academic world, that is. If you're an academic, you refer to BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era). Not so much those outside in the rest of the world. Are people automatically stupid/ignorant/biased/intolerant of other religions because they looked at me funny when I wrote BCE on the blackboard of the Continuing Ed classes I taught?

I don't expect you to answer the following question, but I'd like you to think about it. When did the use of an "apostrophe s" on a scientifically-accepted and polite term (and kind, when you think what the formerly scientific and common term was) become a red flag that the user was ignorant and unkind? Hard as it may be, given past hurts, perhaps focusing on the rest of the content of what people say would be more useful in educating them.

Just my thoughts on a Sunday morning. Be well.

Hekate

[Midlodemocrat]

130. It's been my experience

and I'm not that much younger than you, that people who wish to deride those with syndromes such as Down or Turner or Hunter, have learned only the bare basics of the syndrome and therefore are less than adequately equipped or educated to comment on the grammar of said syndrome, let alone the specifics of the genetics and the emotional component.

Not applying to you in the least, because your compassion glows throw your posts.

[Hannah Bell]

163. The diktat on the naming of syndromes hasn't yet made it to all the medical

journals, as well as encyclopedia britannica, merriam-webster's medical, the british center for cancer education, & various other outlets for "expert" opinion.

Maybe you should let these folks know they're both ignorant & uncaring.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?term=%22down%27s%20syndrome%22&search=Find%20Articles&db=pmc&cmd=search

http://erj.ersjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/5/1195

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1048951

[Hannah Bell]

167. Example of the kind of thing you'll find at those links:

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 April 15; 100(8): 4760–4765.
Published online 2003 April 3. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0831000100. PMCID: PMC153629

Copyright © 2003, The National Academy of Sciences
Medical Sciences

Identification of Down's syndrome critical locus gene SIM2-s as a drug therapy target for solid tumors

Maurice Phil DeYoung,*†‡ Matthew Tress,*† and Ramaswamy Narayanan*†‡§
*Center for Molecular Biology and Biotechnology and Departments of †Biology and ‡Chemistry, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL 33431

How do I know "Down's syndrome" was used in the 60's? Because I worked in a program for people with "Down's syndrome" in the 60's, & I assure you, that name was used in official program documents.

The change in protocol in some quarters has to do with initiatives toward uniform naming, not with "ignorance" or the desire to make fun of people, & certainly has nothing to do with some grammatical error of 's = "owning" a syndrome.

You want people not to use 's - fine, just tell them it's more standard without the personal attack.

[Midlodemocrat]

168. Nah, what I will do is

ignore your ignorant, pompous, moronic ass.

[Hannah Bell]

172. Too bad you can't admit you're wrong. No problem calling others are

ignorant & uncaring for use of "apostrophe s", that's "wise" & "caring," but apparently to challenge your version of history & nomenclature is beyond the pale.

The American Medical Association hadn't got the memo in 1981.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/246/7/758

"Down's Syndrome: Recent Trends in the United States"

hell, here's the search: You'd better write them a letter, tell the doctors they're ignorant & uncaring.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+site:jama.ama-assn.org+%22journal+of+the+american+medical+association%22+%22down%27s+syndrome%22


"ignorant, pompous, moronic ass"

Somehow I was able to make my point without resorting to name-calling, unlike the arbiter of enlightened nomenclature.

[Hannah Bell]

126. If people don't have anything better to worry about than

an 's, they deserve their misery.

"Down's syndrome" was the name used until at least the 60s.

We also have Marfan's syndrome, Korsakoff's syndrome, Gilbert's syndrome, Horner's syndrome, Cushing's syndrome, Behr's syndrome, Mendelson's syndrome, Goodpasture's syndrome, Conn's syndrome, Sjogren's synrome, Kartagener's syndrome, Kanner's syndrome, Lehrmoyez syndrome, Rotor's syndrome, Reye's syndrome, Schmidt's syndrome....

I could go on. Do these people "own" the syndromes named for them? Does alzheimer "own" alzheimer's disease, does bell "own" bell's palsy, does kaposi "own" kaposi's sarcoma?

It's common historical practice to use 's to indicate a disease or condition named for its discoverer. Whether a person says "Down" or "Down's" is nothing to do with ignorance or ill-will.

[Midlodemocrat]

129. You're wrong.

But you knew that before you answered. :eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

157. Wrong about what? Did I make up those syndromes with 's?

Tell it to the compilers of the Merck Manual. Why don't you save your righteous anger for people who intentionally do harm, rather than attributing malevolence to people over minor grammar points.

[sarmark]

72. Howdy

OK, after reading here for a long time finaly a subject came up that I gotta respond to.
To those who don't believe a child with a genetic condition should be allowed to be be born, I want to thank you very much for not having been the folks who concieved me. I'm very grateful to you because I really like being alive. As ya can probably guess, i was born with a genetic condition, mine being Neurofibromatosis. Whoever it was that gave birth to me thought enough of me to allow me to be born. I was given up and adopted by the world's best parents when I was 13 months old. I don't know if the NF had anything todo with me being given up or not and it really doesn't matter. No way could I have wound up with better parents that I had. For those here who support the "Master Race" theory I have only sympathy. Your narrow minded bigotry must make you truly unhappy people. And to think that you might occasionally have to gaze upon us less than perfect humans out in public. The Horror. No need to worry though. We are not contagious. We are though, by and large far happier in who we are than you are.
Mark

I just had to make this one response. I am happy to see the favorable replies to the Governor's decision. Politicaly I'm worlds apart from the vast majority of you but I do enjoy reading here. I'm not going to be saying a lot, and I know this is a Democrat site and I respect that so I won't be doing any trolling. That 1 lady just kinda hit a nerve and this time I couldn't keep my mouth (fingers?) shut.

[Number23]

80. Neurofibromatosis

A genetic disease characterized by multiple benign tumors of peripheral nerves, called neurofibromas, and pigmented spots on the skin, sometimes accompanied by bone deformity and a predisposition to cancers.

You've been through much and are still here to tell the tale. Very well done, my friend...

[ChazII]

82. Well said!

I also have NF -- I have NF1 as does my son. His condition is more severe as he has a plexiform tumor. Comments have been made that he should not be allowed in public because of his looks were said on several occasions. Being called freak and monster was a daily occurance while growing up during his elementary and pre-school years. That being said, I would never have considered aborting.

I am not going to say anymore because this is a hot button subject for me.

[proud2BlibKansan]

88. Neurofibromatosis is not a cognitive impairment

Any parents who reject a child who has neurofibromatosis are not worthy of being parents. That's just ignorant.

As for DU, there are a couple things you need to understand. We HATE Republicans and we are also generally adamantly pro choice. So most of us will support the governor's right to choose. It's her anti gay stance that causes problems for progressives.

Welcome to DU :hi:

[ChazII]

108. High number

of NFers with learning disablities. I know -- my son is one of them. Some have severe LD's.

[proud2BlibKansan]

112. This thread is about a child with Down Syndrome

There is a HUGE difference between learning disabilities and developmental disabilities, like Down Syndrome.

[Kajsa]

145. Yes, there is a difference.

However, students from both groups battle similar hardships
and discrimination.


:(

[StevieM]

118. Welcome to DU. I'm glad you decided to de-lurk and post here (eom)

[bean fidhleir]

154. "I really like being alive"

Good! I'm exceptionally glad that's so, because the condition you had the ill-luck to get is one that I'm sure is a burden socially quite apart from the medical aspects.

But your statement that you're glad you weren't aborted is a little saddening, because it shows you're confusing zygote abortion with actual-human killing.

You would not have suffered even a nanosecond had that glob of cells been aborted because that glob wasn't "you". It eventually became you, but it wasn't you at the time when abortion would have taken place. There was no "you" at that point; "you" didn't exist. (Or, if you're a religious person, there's no reason to suppose prospective human souls aren't on a sort of divine conveyer belt, waiting to be shoved into a body. Had that zygote been dumped, you might have got one without NF.)

[kiranon]

194. My adopted daughter has neurofibromatosis (NF1)

Thank you for your beautiful post. In addition, she is autistic, has epilepsy and numerous learning disorders. But . . . she is wonderful and I believe makes this world a better place for all of us. I am glad she is my daughter and not the daughter of those who do not understand the beauty in all human beings. There are many so called "perfect" people that I am glad are not my children.

[BlueIris]

123. It is shocking, isn't it? Some posters here have just lost a PILE of my respect.

[Hekate]

125. You are absolutely right. There's a slew of unbelievably mean-spirited and judgmental comments here.

At DU. Ew.

Hekate

[mainegreen]

135. Holland is slower paced than Italy?

Clearly the writer has never been to Holland!

:rofl:

Still, I like the essay.

[colinmom71]

149. And there are some of us who detest that essay...

It's nice to talk about the different path to Holland, but when you're there surrounded by Italians and find out your Rembrandt is a fake, the tulips refuse to grow, and the windmills are rotted and inoperable shells, you're not going to enjoy your diversion to Holland...

That essay is a romanticized notion that life with a disabled child offers joy and bliss if you just accept it as "different". But the truth is the reality of raising a disabled child offers little joy and certainly no bliss. The financial and emotional stresses tear apart families on a daily basis. Over 80% of parents of disabled children end up divorcing due to the stress - though to be fair, some couples find the need to divorce in order to allow the custodial parent's income levels to become low enough to qualify for public services for the disabled child such as Medicaid, SSDI, and child care.

And then there's the issue of long term caregiving once the child reaches the age of legal majority... But you have to think about that later since today is so busy with today's needs... Try not to think about how your state's laws could require you to give up your parental rights and to surrender legal custody to the state should your child's needs be so severe that only institutionalized (in-patient) care is a viable option. Try not to think about that time during Kindergarten honors day when all the "normal" parents looked so annoyed at having to waste their time at seeing "those kids" from the special ed classroom getting their few minutes of attention... Try not to think about how much of your monthly expenditure goes towards diapers for a 12 year old. Try not to think about what will happen to your vulnerable child if anything happens to you because you know that your spouse cannot and will not be able to manage on his own...

Oh sorry, I was supposed to be thinking of paintings and flowers instead... Hard to see those since they don't often exist in Helland...

[gaspee]

158. Your post

IN this thread is about the only one I've seen actually based in reality.

None of these people (or hardly any) have any clue whatsoever what it's like to be raised with a disabled sibling and *know* you're going to have to care for that sibling for life.

It's not glorious, or some imaginary sky-fairy's plan or any other such nonsense.

It's thankless and horrible and fucks up your life in ways that people who haven't had to do it will never, ever, ever realize.

All that said, this person still your sibling and even though it sucks more than half the time, you take care of them because the thought of putting them into an institution is much, much worse than what you're taking on.

And if the person lives beyond all of their siblings, good luck finding someone in the next generation, who hasn't been raised with the person, who hasn't made the sacrifices because they know and love the person as a person, to take on the burden.

A 50 year sacrifice will be naught because the next generation isn't so personally involved and will probably warehouse the person.

[Midlodemocrat]

159. Not everyone's reality. Not at all.

Are you aware that it is practically impossible to adopt a child with Down Syndrome because the list of people waiting to adopt such children is incredibly long?

There are some people who are just better able to deal with the hand they're dealt than others. That's the reality. That's why this woman shouldn't be criticized for deciding to keep the baby, (who, btw, I saw a pic of in yesterday's paper and is adorable). She obviously feels as though she is equipped to do a good job by him and the rest of her family.

That being said, I know of a family who has suffered greatly because of their low functioning child with Down Syndrome. She has stated repeatedly that had she known he was afflicted with Down SYndrome, she would have aborted him.

There are people on this board who knew that their child would be born with Down Syndrome and elected to continue with the pregnancy. They couldn't be happier with their choice.

And, isn't choice what it's all about?

[colinmom71]

162. Couldn't edit to add this to my post above...

My son doesn't have Down Syndrome. His disabilities are due to premature birth (16 weeks early) and his problems are more extensive than most DS kids.

Still, my post above is valid for parents and close family members of most kids with any form of disability, including Down's. Thank you Gaspee for providing a sibling's POV. My son is and will remain an only child for a number of reasons (medical issues on my end, worry that a younger sibling would resent being part of a caregiving network they had no choice in, etc.). I love my son dearly and anyone who knows me knows that I have centered my life around his well-being. But I'd give anything for his life to not have been the struggle it has been for all of us...

As for the Governor's own choice, she made the choice that she felt was best for her and her family, and she acted according to her own sense of conscience. And that is what made it the best decision to continue on to raise her child with Down Syndrome. But then I also fully support state aid/universal health coverage to help all parents and families to get the most appropriate care for their disabled child/sibling/loved one, and that includes aid for alternative living situations outside the family home without stripping parents of their rights and responsibilities to their child. Yeah, I'm a dreamer...

[Midlodemocrat]

170. I'm sorry for your what you've been through.

And, my post was referencing other, more significant disabilities as well.

One of my friends has a son who is severely disabled from a birth injury. Not terribly cognitively disabled, but unable to walk; uses a power wheelchair.

Their experience is very different from the ones you cite. He has two older brothers who absolutely adore him and would do anything for him. His parents, fortunate to be very well off, take him routinely to a subset of the Rast Institute in Budapest to strenghten his muscles in the hopes that he will be able to walk someday.

Had they known that he would be this disabled prior to his birth, they would still have chosen to have him. Obviously, they would have preferred that he be able to walk and not have suffered the birth injury he did, but they wouldn't have wished him away.

Just Saturday night, I held his birthday party for him. There are a couple of posts in the Lounge about it. We all had a great time.

[colinmom71]

182. Oh, I guessed you were also figuring in other disabilities...

I just wanted to post for accuracy's sake after I re-read my first post! :)

I also acknowledge that part of my perspective is jaundiced in that my only parenting experience has been with my disabled child. I think with some families it may be somewhat easier if they've had other typically abled children and have had a more typical parenting experience in addition to parenting a child with medical and/or disability issues. It's hard to see the "tulips and Rembrandts" for me since all I know is the less stellar side of the "Holland" life.

I'm sincerely glad your friends have been able to have a different dynamic within their own family. Truly, that wonderful for them and their sons. But unfortunately, they are the exception rather than the norm for most families in the USA with disabled kids. Most are working class families who have a hard time accessing public services, never mind trying to afford private treatments. I've actually had a rather easy time with Colin, in so far as medical care and services have been concerned. From what I understand, services in Georgia are quite better than in Florida and other neighboring states. And while I'm grateful that we've had little trouble with accessing proper health care for Colin, I just don't think health care for disabled kids should be allowed to be as arbitrary as what state they happen to reside...

[Midlodemocrat]

183. I wholeheartedly concur.

I don't have a disabled child, but I have written policy for special education children here in my town, as well as worked as an advocate when I was a practicing psychologist in CT.

If I may, have you looked into a Medicaid carveout for your son? How old is he? Most families with disabled children are unaware that a lot of their costs are covered either under a Medicare waiver or a Medicaid carveout.

If I can help you with any of this, please PM me. I would be more than happy to do so.

[colinmom71]

189. Yes, he's actually on the Deeming Waiver...

Here in GA, which put him on GA's Medicaid program just as he'd been when he was on SSI. We essentially have double coverage for him - health insurance through my husband's employer and Medicaid as secondary coverage. Basically, we pay virtually no out of pocket money for his medical care... And that's how I think it should be for all families dealing with a disabled family member.

[Midlodemocrat]

190. Medicaid, either a carve out through Medicare or a waiver

IS available. Most folks just don't know it.

I remember when my dad went on Medicaid. My poor mom was still schlepping adult diapers for him because the social worker never told her that they were covered. I had to do it. Which was FINE, but my husband is a nationally recognized expert on Medicare/Medicaid, so we knew to inquire.

Most families don't have that luxury and most social workers are so overwhelmed, they don't get the information to the families that need it.

Best to you and Colin. Would love to see a pic.

[kiranon]

197. I am sorry life has been so difficult for you. Email me if you wish.

We have 2 biological children who had no learning disorders, no delays and were at the top of their class. As adults, they rarely see us as they are too busy being successful. We were clueless about how hard life could be for those with special needs children. We then adopted 2 children who are two years apart and "got knowledge" really fast. They both have massive special needs. We laughed at the "Welcome to Holland" email when we got it. My husband said it was more like Bangladesh. But we found the beauty in Bangladesh but do not expect that to be the case for everyone. There are those with issues so difficult that they cannot be overcome or dealt with. We were lucky to have friends and a community that come to our aid when we thought there was no hope. I hope you can find such a community to help you. It is very hard and those with do not live it truly do not understand.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OhioChick]

110. Her choice isn't yours to make. n/t

[Hekate]

111. Not your choice to make. Ever. You cannot know what is in a woman's soul and circumstances....

... thus my own pro-choice position regarding abortion itself.

You cannot know.

Blessed be.

Hekate

[mitchtv]

116. actually,

numbers 3 thru 5 should have been prevented. I'm sure she has a giant SUV(or three) also. typical, I can aford to use more resources, so I'm doing it, repug.

[BigDaddy44]

128. You mean like Al Gore with his four kids?

[mitchtv]

174. yup, kinda

although in fairness awareness was at a different level in those times. But.yeah no excuse for liberals to consume vociferously

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftyladyfrommo]

140. Oh, for heavens sake! There are lots and lots of Downs kids living

out there and they and their families are doing just fine.

[yellowcanine]

144. Yes there are. Probably because their parents were willing to ask the difficult questions

of how to take care of a Downs child and make the investments (time, money, social) needed.

[gaspee]

160. Interesting

Most of the people in this thread have no clue what they're talking about and it is not based in reality.

None of these people (or hardly any) have any clue whatsoever what it's like to be raised with a disabled sibling and *know* you're going to have to care for that sibling for life.

It's not glorious, or some imaginary sky-fairy's plan or any other such nonsense.

It's thankless and horrible and fucks up your life in ways that people who haven't had to do it will never, ever, ever realize.

All that said, this person still your sibling and even though it sucks more than half the time, you take care of them because the thought of putting them into an institution is much, much worse than what you're taking on. Because being raised with them, you love them, it's part of being human and the thought of hiring people at minimum wage - people who are being forced to do a thankless job because of economic reality won't give a fuck and will treat your family member like shit --- that's what makes you do it - even though it sucks. You didn't choose to have the kid - your parents did -- but you're the one to take it on when they can't any longer. Even if you can't afford it economically or mentally -- And when I say "you're" it's almost always the female siblings. Another shitty fact of life.

And if the person lives beyond all of their siblings, good luck finding someone in the next generation, who hasn't been raised with the person, who hasn't made the sacrifices because they know and love the person as a person - and not some abstract idea -- to take on the burden.

A 50 year sacrifice will be naught because the next generation isn't so personally involved and will probably warehouse the person.

So yeah, thinking about the consequences to all of the people involved would be a good fucking idea.

[kiranon]

198. Our grown children will not be "stuck" with our special needs kids

One of our children's special needs teachers asked to be our children's guardian should anything happen to us. There are alternatives that can be set up in advance or even now.

[KamaAina]

199. Actually, Trig's biggest problem isn't that he has Down syndrome

it's that he has a repuke for a mom. :evilgrin:

[kiranon]

204. You disrespect all those with Down Syndrome to believe that

[KamaAina]

205. I know several people with Down syndrome who are perfectly happy

then again, out here, their parents are probably Dems. :-)

[kiranon]

207. I'm a Democrat but know many good moms who are Republicans

One's politics do not define what kind of parent someone will be. My proof? Just read the discussion above.

[ulysses]

210. wow. this is kind of a horrifying thread.

:puke:

[Feron]

213. Nice story although it's a puff piece.

It is refreshing to see a disability story that isn't about pity.

It's all about choice. Some women know that they can't deal with a special needs child and aren't awful for terminating the pregnancy. By the same token, women who have a disabled child aren't automatically selfish either.

And whatever your intentions, keep your hands off of my uterus. Everyone has a right to bodily autonomy and if overpopulation bothers you so much then support birth control and sex ed initatives. Freedom means accepting that other people can and will make choices that you disagree with. And that freedom is a good thing.

For every Duggar family out there, you have many more couples with two or less children. So it all balances out.

[Ilsa]

214. She made the right decision for herself and her family. What if a stranger

in government had told her "You must have this baby" or even "You can't have this baby." ?? These are decisions that must be left up to the pregnant woman and those close toher who will be providing support raising this child.

Having money can be very helpful also in getting the right medical care and therapy for a disabled child. I know, I have one.

And I'm sick of the stupid Holland vacation analogy.

[otherlander]

226. Good for him.

I'm sure it takes a lot of strength to make such a commitment.

[joeglow3]

230. She is 44 years old

Waiting that late in life increases your chance of having a baby with Down's BIG TIME. I don't have a problem with people who would rather have children later in life, but you would think if they made that choice, they would make sure they understood the potential costs. This should not have been a HUGE surprise. The odds are 1 in a 100 for someone in their 40's.

http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/pregnancy-after-35

Either way, I admire courage and believe she made the right choice.

[Midlodemocrat]

245. Actually, younger women are having more children with Down Syndrome

because older woman are being screened. A great many children with DS have been aborted who would have been born to older mothers, over the age of 35, which the medical community calls Advanced Maternal Age.

More and more babies with Down Syndrome are actually being BORN to younger women who aren't being screened.

[JI7]

246. she didn't wait, she already has 4 other kids

that she had when she was much younger.

i don't think they planned on this kid but she did end up getting pregnant. and for someone who is opposed to abortion it wasn't an option for her.

[Inittowinit]

247. hmm

[La Lioness Priyanka]

249. her body her choice. whats everyone all upset about?

[Wabbajack_]

266. She had ihim to use as a prop durning VP bid

I wouldn't put it past them.