Home » Culture, Darwinism, News » Father of adult son with Down syndrome reflects on post-birth abortion and Darwinism

Father of adult son with Down syndrome reflects on post-birth abortion and Darwinism

David Warren

Here’s David Warren (Ottawa Citizen, March 3, 2012):

According to an article published by the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics, currently getting a lot of press, it’s all right to kill babies. Abortion, even “late term abortion,” is not the issue here. The authors, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, adopt the pro-life argument that there is no essential difference between a child in the mother’s womb, and a child newly born. They then turn this argument on its head, to say if it is permissible to abort the unborn child, then it is permissible to kill the newborn.

Their clinching argument comes from an examination of 18 European birth registries. Apparently, Down’s syndrome was diagnosed pre-natally in only 64 percent of cases. In 36 percent it thus came as a surprise. If the presence of Down’s syndrome, which the authors call a “disease,” is reason enough to kill a “foetus,” why should the parents of such an infant be put to the burden of keeping it, through the ill-luck of a missed diagnosis? Alternatively, why should the State be put to the expense?

As the father of a beloved Down’s syndrome son, the reader will imagine how much this argument disgusts me. But long before that (pre-natally undiagnosed) child was born, I associated eugenic arguments with the pointed Darwinism of Hitler.

Such “emotional” objections are obviated by the authors, for they go on to find no objection to any argument parents might have for killing their newborn child. (Maybe they wanted a boy and got a girl “by mistake”?)

More. The authors of the paper want to call the practice post-birth abortion, so that it can become morally acceptable.

A trial balloon? For sure. If the idea takes off, it will be interesting to see where supporters stand on Darwinism and atheistic materialism generally.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

8 Responses to Father of adult son with Down syndrome reflects on post-birth abortion and Darwinism

  1. This following woman had survived a abortion attempt on her as a baby, and has come back with much anger against those who deemed her life worthless at her birth and thought it better to kill her:

    Born Alive – Abortion Survivor Gianna Jessen
    http://www.faithandfacts.com/a.....na-jessen/

    Music:

    Black Eyed Peas – Where Is The Love?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpYeekQkAdc

  2. I have to say “I told you so”, having predicted in “World Medicine” in 1982 that the arguments used to promote abortion were bound to be applied to euthanasia. My only mistake was in how slow the ethicists would be to get there.

    The basis of the argument is that a fetus is less a person than a baby, and a baby is less a person than an adult with volition. And yet, clearly even a baby resists pain and damage, so they’re talking about a spectrum of potentiality rather than an either/or matter.

    So what next? Why should there be an absolute bar to making quantitative judgements on adult personhood too, since we’re to avoid purely “emotional” arguments? The mentally impaired (including Downs adults, naturally) must surely be considered less capable of rational choice than their carers – including the state, which has to devote resources to them which coulod be “better” used elsewhere.

    But then, doesn’t intelligence and education increase the quantitative measure of personhood? How can the wishes of an unskilled, unemployable social parasite be weighed against the judgements of those who understand what constitutes the good of an overpopulated society? Or a slash-and burn subsistence farmer against those who appreciate the damage his kind causes to the environment?

    Not to mention the stubborn stupidity of those who insist on holding religious views, which are known by all bright people to have cause most of society’s ills?

    Welcome back, Messrs Galton and Haeckl – you were right all the time.

  3. At least the authors of the paper are finally being honest and consistent with their viewpoints. If its ok to kill a baby before its born, it should also be ok to kill a baby after its born.

    Human beings have no intrinsic rights, other than what they are granted by the government. The strong rule the weak, who may be exploited or discarded for the convenience of the strong.

    Kudos to them for providing all of us a wonderful glimpse of what things will be like for us once western civilization has finally discarded all the tattered remnants of the Judeo-Christian culture.

  4. 4

    The article reveals the true evil nature of those who claim the UNborn are not human and that abortion is just another ‘reproductive choice.’ It was never about the woman’s body (as we see in the article where they claim newborn infants could be aborted) it was all about eugenics and viewing humans as nothing but ‘bags of chemicals’ It’s atheism/materialism permeating our society…and many people are too naive to realize it.

  5. We often look down upon ancients and their pagan practice of animal and sometimes human sacrifice. What makes our civilization any different? Not even the names of gods and goddesses changed in this pantheon of New Paganism. Komodia is worshiped more than ever and so is Gaia, Aphrodite and Libertas. So why not follow the pagan practice of sacrificing children to them? It makes perfect sense to me.

  6. Ironically, there is an article this week in Entertainment Weekly about actors with Down syndrome (notably Chris Burke, who played Corky on Life Goes On in the 90s) and their relative success in the fickle world of acting.

    According to this article, they should have been aborted or killed. Sad.

  7. In heaven, if a person acutely afflicted with Down’s Syndrome or any other form of mental deficiency, here below in this vale of tears, wished to understand our current terrestrial science, indeed, the structure of our entire universe, it seems to me most unlikely that he would be at a disadvantage in that regard to Einstein or any other of the greats, who were almost all, not merely theists – with the occasional panentheist, such a AE, thrown in – but, in popular parlance, ‘religious nuts’.

    Indeed, if anything, the reverse. Not that anyone would amid the joys of heaven.

  8. For an atheist’s assessment of the controversial article, see After-Birth Abortion and the Solomon Problem.

Leave a Reply