Posted on 03/10/2018 1:27:38 PM PST by Kaslin
Washington Post deputy editorial page editor, Ruth Marcus, penned an op-ed yesterday defending the “right” to selectively kill babies inside the mother’s womb who have been diagnosed with Down syndrome. The piece is filled superfluous nonsense that matters neither here, nor there in the main point of her argument. Marcus is not defending killing babies due to perceived disabilities, but rather asserting her belief that a woman should be able to kill the baby inside her womb at anytime and for whatever reason, without question.
“There is a new push in antiabortion circles to pass state laws aimed at barring women from terminating their pregnancies after the fetus has been determined to have Down syndrome. These laws are unconstitutional, unenforceable — and wrong,” Marcus starts off.
She then goes on to say that it’s a difficult subject to write about because “there are so many parents who have — and cherish — a child with Down syndrome.”
Then, rather perversely, Marcus pauses to mention how cute the new Gerber baby is. “Many people with Down syndrome live happy and fulfilled lives. The new Gerber baby with Down syndrome is awfully cute.”
“I have had two children; I was old enough, when I became pregnant, that it made sense to do the testing for Down syndrome,” she writes. “I can say without hesitation that, tragic as it would have felt and ghastly as a second-trimester abortion would have been, I would have terminated those pregnancies had the testing come back positive. I would have grieved the loss and moved on.”
Marcus then provides a handful of hotly debated and cherry picked statistics over the mental cognition of humans with Down syndrome and their supposed happiness. Harkening back to what she would have done if one her kids had Down syndrome, Marcus defends her option to kill her child by saying essentially, "everybody else would do it."
"I’m going to be blunt here: That was not the child I wanted. That was not the choice I would have made. You can call me selfish, or worse, but I am in good company. The evidence is clear that most women confronted with the same unhappy alternative would make the same decision," Marcus states.
But, really none of that matters. To her, it is not about Down syndrome. It is 100% about the desires and wants of the mother, irregardless of the child she carries.
"Which brings us to the Supreme Court. North Dakota, Ohio, Indiana and Louisiana passed legislation to prohibit doctors from performing abortions if the sole reason is because of a diagnosis of Down syndrome; Utah’s legislature is debating such a bill."
"These laws are flatly inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling, reaffirmed in 1992, that “it is a constitutional liberty of the woman to have some freedom to terminate her pregnancy.” Of the woman. As U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt concluded in striking down the Indiana law in September, the high court’s determination “leaves no room for the state to examine, let alone prohibit, the basis or bases upon which a woman makes her choice.”
"Technological advances in prenatal testing pose difficult moral choices about what, if any, genetic anomaly or defect justifies an abortion. Nearsightedness? Being short? There are creepy, eugenic aspects of the new technology that call for vigorous public debate," writes Ruth, alluding to the fact that it possible that it is wrong for a mother to kill her offspring simply because the child could have traits that she does not want.
Marcus ignores that science is proving that viable human life begins earlier and earlier than previously thought. She still maintains that it's her right, no matter what, to be able to have an abortion.
"But in the end, the Constitution mandates — and a proper understanding of the rights of the individual against those of the state underscores — that these excruciating choices be left to individual women, not to government officials who believe they know best," Ruth asserts.
Under that logic, abortion should be available from conception until the time of birth. And, it should be perfectly acceptable for a mother to practice eugenics by carefully choosing which child of desired traits she allows to live and which she kills. Marcus, writing for a mainstream paper such as the Washington Post, highlights the extremism that pro-abortion individuals have taken their message. For conservatives, "in the end," the argument is not about what kind of life a Down syndrome baby may lead, it is about at what point will society stop allowing the murder of innocents simply because the mother does not want their child.
Evil troll, Ruth Marcus
My own thought is, keep it very short and not rough or rude at all. My message was thus:
Dear Ms Marcus,Thank you for your thought-provoking article.
The insight I am moved to share with you is this: Abortion calls into question, not the unborn baby's humanity, but our own.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Nothing approaching ridicule or contempt. Just aiming to give her the cumulative impression that most people don't think she's OK
Absolutely fantastic. Bingo.
" "I'm going to be blunt here. That is not the child I wanted.""Email Ruth Marcus at:Dear Ruth Marcus:
You believe you are a human being. Great. It's a free country. Let's say I do not.
Would that give me the right not only to hold, but to act on my belief, end your life, grieve moderately (because I am a decent, civilized person) and then move on?
Your "thoughtful" commentary makes me wonder whether you've given 10 minutes of sustained thought to the concept of "ethical behavior."
Except perhaps this thought, so common in our culture: The Supreme Moral Law is "What I Want."
There are less of them now than every but I have known left-wing Democrats in the probably-voted-for-Bernie-Sanders category, who are strongly against abortion, and have spoken up clearly and paid up personally.
OTOH, there FReepers who make their appearance on every thread like this one, to unburden themselves of the opinion that some people really ought to have been aborted; but since they weren't, at least it's a good thing they abort their own.
All liberals are Nazis at heart. They are sub-human filth who don’t have the fortitude to abort themselves but advocate the murder of millions in front of them.
So let me get this straight. According to Marcus, if a woman wants to terminate her child on the speciousness of a “test” (what if the result is wrong?), then it’s “unconstitutional” to abridge, abrogate or restrict it (I’m unaware of any amendment that enshrines the “right” to such a thing). But if the same woman wanted to buy a firearm for herself, which is an actually enumerated constitutional right, then the leftists like Marcus claim with the utmost zeal that such a thing must absolutely be abridged, abrogated, and restricted.
Woman wants to kill her kid in the womb? Marcus says that’s a constitutionally protected right. Same woman wants to buy a gun for her own protection, then the Marcus crowd wants to take an actually enumerated constitutional right and gut it to the point of prevention. Is it me, or do these people clearly not see how deranged an argument this is?
That is a wicked idea and I have seen it play out. It gives us parents who believe in lies and bring children up in same. One can certainly try to arrange the best matchmaking possible between egg and sperm, but once united that’s it. One must exercise due diligence. Down’s children are still viable.
I know... those are ill wishes. Just because something looks like a duck doesn’t mean it absolutely can’t be a goose decked out in false feathers.
It's good people are publicizing this.
Face it! Leftist truly have no real compassion.
Oh no! That would be a blessing.
Wow. She’s Jewish. How soon we forget!!
Most people want a beautiful, intelligent, normal child. And the world repays them in multiple ways when they produce one. The mental illness handicap often doesn't show up until much lateer, not always.
I too often lately write more then go back and delete almost all of it.
"If you outlaw abortion, there will be more back alley terminations and more importantly MORE MURDERS OF BORN,LIVE,BREATHING BABIES. More abuse, more neglect, more abandonment. All happening to actual babies/toddlers/children- who think and feel pain."
I've tried to respond to that any many others, most recently with a close relative. Yes, it's probably true but only because we have created a culture that doesn't value children. Only wanted children are worthy of life and love.
It doesn't excuse terminating them.
Today I met another man with Down’s syndrome. He was 28 and had the capacities of a 20 year old, a fully functioning man.
He was the friendliest guy in the room, had fun with the family and had not a single bad thing to say about anyone.
We need more people like that. Everyone else devolved into politics at a one year-old’s birthday party. But this guy just wanted the kids to have a good time.
Not once will ever meet one of these fine people who would suggest or accept the death or harm of anyone.
About tests ... one of my cousins was older when she got pregnant ... had a blood test .. was told the baby was Down’s Syndrome. At their age they believed this would be their only child.
They carried him to term and when he was born ... did not have Down’s. Scary to think how easily he could have been done away with based on a wrong test.
Amazing changes can come over the mind and heart of a woman who accepts an unplanned pregnancy. Perhaps she starts with the stoic thought, "Well, this is what I've gotta do, but I'll go to an agency and set up an adoption when it's born" --- and then by the time she has the baby, she loves it. Love floods her heart. She is inspired to find she's a mother after all.
On the other hand, a couple careful to set themselves up for a planned pregnancy , seemingly under optimal conditions, will sometimes abuse their child because the kid doesn't turn out as planned, perfect and privileged as they hoped it would be. The kid turns out insufficiently cute, insufficiently smart, not as gratifying to them as they'd planned.
Overplanning, overcontrolling parents can be real abusers. On the other hand, ones who are plucky enough to be flexible and "take life as it comes" can sometimes do superbly with their kids.
God bless.
And I put myself in each woman's position and try to be open about feelings. But doing the right thing isn't always about feelings. Adoption seems like a terribly difficult choice but surely better than killing one's own child.
And I have trouble with forcing women to continue certain pregnancies like rape and incest. I don't personally now have room for exceptions for myself. It just seemed better when society conformed to fairly uniform moral law and I didn't have to worry about it. And I've read enough to see that things were not all happy good times in the past either. Most everyone just accepted it I ever knew. Most in my hs and college years married after getting pg. Of those, some where good marriages and some were not. And very many were not pg when married. Don't have numbers for it.
Only my deceased neighbor next door said her aunt in St. Louis, married but poor, had six illegal abortions. For some years now I wonder if my mother had an abortion after her divorce. She talked about trips to Mexico and Cuba. And once I was arguing about either this or gay stuff on the Catholic usenet news group. Some seem to "call for backup". And someone out of the blue spat at me textually "yout mother killed your I think it was "older" brother!". And I always wanted a brother and begged my parents to have another child.
But I've carried guilt about one instance before I got married. This happened later, but a friend in hs was sexually active, didn't use protection, and worried about getting pg. She claimed hard exercise and running really fast up and down stairs will cause a miscarriage. So one time I had that scare and that's what I did when I was late one month. Next morning I had horrible cramps and passed a big clot. For years I never told my ex or anyone about it. And I had even buried it from my conscious memory for many, many years.
After I became Catholic, I did a moral inventory. Some memories surfaced slowly over a period of 5 to 10 years. Some were revealing past sins I'd repressed and others light on root causes for some emotional trauma and explained why I made some of the choices I did (not all sinful). And some things have never been clear. First there was a dream and then it popped in my conscious mind.
Then I still never told anyone except even though I'd made as thorough confession as I could, I confessed that. And strangely, my children one=by=one started reporting they dreamed they had a brother they never knew they had. Three of them. And dreams were all different. My oldest did have a spontaneous miscarriage, and she wanted that child even though she wasn't married to the father.
But none of them since had an abortion I ever knew about. It's a good thing I think their father never knew until it was too late because he made his daughter have at least one abortion. She ran away to my oldest daughter when he wanted her to have one abortion, don't know if before or after. My daughter hid her for a week until there was some contact. The school counsellor helped her, and she was allowed back home and to continue the pregnancy and had a son. Got married and had another son, then divorced. Now remarried on FB with an unplanned daughter she is so happy with, all she talks about.
And one of the boys my daughter could be partially credited for saving treated my kids like dirt.
There's lots lots more I could tell but think I'd better not. It's still too ongoing and painful.
No, I never had to live in tenements in big cities in older times. I can certainly apppreciate how hard it would have been on men and women in different ways. And children going to bed hungry. I can't say for certain if I would have been swayed by Margaret Sanger or not. At one time I would have been more open to abortion but terrified of the procedure. Even knitting needles or coat hangers I would have been horrified. Still am. But personally, I think Margaret Sanger had a grudge about something and pounced on that issue against people she didn't like and make a name for herself. Maybe a closet lesbian. Never thought of that before, doubtful. If she wouldn't have come along, somebody else would. And it is legal to one degree or another on almost every country on the planet, so if we were to succeed in turning back the clock, it would be harder to practice And we'd never hear the end of it through the media and agitators, probably communist.
Another long one and I'd wipe out most of it except it's important if to no one else but me, and you or nobody has to read it all. I may want to come back and use some of it again for some reason.
God's blessings to you, too.
Thank you for your reflections. You have lived much and learned much. God’s grace and strength be with you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.