[wagglebee]

40 year-old Smyth writes that she and her 45 year-old lawyer husband do not “feel capable of raising a severely disabled child. It would be different if we didn't have a choice, but we do.”

Yes, her "choice" was murder and she is doing it because a child interferes with her utter selfishness.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping.

[wagglebee]

MORAL ABSOLUTES PING

DISCUSSION ABOUT:

Globe and Mail Op Ed Propaganda for Renewal of Eugenics

The geneticist/eugenicist told a woman that her baby would have Down's Syndrome, so she simply murdered the baby.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be included in or removed from the MORAL ABSOLUTES PINGLIST, please FReepMail wagglebee.

[Tuscaloosa Goldfinch]

Choose life over selfishness!

Carry the baby to term, and send her to me. I'm nearly 50, but I'd do my best.

[muawiyah]

This woman is trying to tell us that it feels good to destroy the innocent ~ improves your life actually.

She'd been right at home administering opium to the sacrificial virgin left aboard the Viking chief's boat as it burns.

Or, maybe she would have kept the opium for herself and left the child to feel the pain of the flames.

Stuff ain't gettin' better if we allow people like this to roam free.

[KarinG1]

When life deals you lemons you are supposed to make lemonade, not kill them.

[the invisib1e hand]

She describes herself and her husband as financially secure yuppies, professional, with university degrees, who own their own mortgage-free house, and who are fit, healthy and looking 10 years younger than their age.

having everything....and less than nothing.

[WorkingClassFilth]

I'm looking forward to this couple's athelete child bringing them in to one of my franchised 'Drive-Thru-Euthanasia' centers in, oh, 30 years or so. Well, maybe 40 years if they are still young looking and healthy octagenarians. When the golden child no longer feels he/she/it is able to take care of his/her/its parents, well then, time for a knock on the noggin and into the trash bin for mumsy and dada.

Annyone interested in early franchise rights for baby-boomer disposal marts?

[Outland]

The child needs to abort the parents.

[Zeon Cowboy]

I am deeply troubled at the prospect of this practice becoming widespread. This is evil in the truest sense of the word.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

40 year-old Smyth writes that she and her 45 year-old lawyer husband...

Children are wasted on old selfish people.

[Mrs. Don-o]

This is worth reading --- and circulating.

My friend in Holland, Nancy Forest-Flier, just yesterday sent me this eloquent article--- written by a severely disabled person who is opposed to eugenic abortion --- that appeared in Trouw, a major Dutch newspaper. Nancy did the translation. From: Forestflier@cs.com
* * * * *

Disabled people are so much more than their disabilities

There's some sort of taboo on deciding to go ahead with the birth of a child that you know has a disability or sickness, and to simply admit that you're happy with the child just as he is. Recent research on the consequences of abortion performed on disabled or sick children, conducted by Dutch midwife Marijke Korenromp, confirmed that for me once again, although she didn't say so in so many words.

At least one in five women suffer from traumas if they decide to abort because their future child is said to have some kind of abnormality. Yet only one to three percent of those asked say they regret their decision. I can imagine how difficult it must be to admit you're "sorry" for not allowing your child to be born. On the basis of information provided by experts, these people believed that they had done their best for their child by sparing him a life with a disability or sickness. Added to this is the fact that society in general regards the selective abortion of a fetus with an abnormality as appropriate and self-evident. Knowing that, just try admitting you're sorry. And if you do, where do you go from there?

Unfortunately, Korenromp's research never asks whether we're on the right path with these selective abortions or whether it wouldn't be better to just let the disabled and sick children be born. It seems to me that these are questions we desperately need to ask. The selective abortion of a fetus with a disability or sickness is a result of developments in medical technology that took place within the seclusion of laboratories, where scientists strive work to create the perfect human being free of any deficiencies. On that basis, people have apparently swallowed the idea that disabilities are simply "not done." And as a result, in our little country at least 550 pregnancies are terminated each year only because the child is believed to have some kind of defect.

I know from experience what it's like to have a serious disability. I've been seriously spastic since birth. That means I can't walk and can't use my hands, and I have a speech defect. It's not fun. Sometimes I feel like a prisoner in my own body. I anxiously follow the discussions on prenatal diagnostics and the selective abortion of fetuses with disabilities or sicknesses. I've always thought there was something wrong with this line of reasoning -- that people involved in these matters either don't get what it's all about or aren't being honest. If you could prevent severe disabilities by means of selective abortion it would be a fantastic discovery. But those aren't the facts. With selective abortion you prevent the life of a whole human being, of which the disability is only a small part.

Granted, I'd be better off without my disability. But I'm much more than my disability alone, and there are so many things that make life worthwhile. I dread to think that I would have missed it all, just because of my disability. I'm speaking for myself alone, but there are tons of people with disabilities who wouldn't want to give up their lives. There are even people who have become disabled because of failed suicide attempts, after which they can hardly think about suicide any more. Believe me, a disability is really no reason to not want to live, even though you occasionally get royally fed up about all the things you can't do because of your disability.

I think this is just as true for parents (or future parents) who have a child with a disability. Of course you don't wish a disability on your own child, with all the limitations that entails. But that cannot mean you don't want the child at all, just for that reason. This is evident from the fact that parents have more trouble working through an abortion if they've held their child in their arms. If you hold a child in your arms, it's not a disability or sickness you're holding but a complete human being who undoubtedly would have had a great deal to offer. That's what we're talking about here.

If we were honest with ourselves, we'd stop acting as if selective abortion were a wonderful way to prevent disabilities and sicknesses. We'd recognize that selective abortion destroys whole human lives. And if we were really honest with ourselves, we'd ask ourselves and each other whether we allow selective abortion because a disability or sickness is too horrible to live with, or because we think people with a disability or chronic illness are too expensive and don't have a place in the modern and dynamic society we have in mind. I'd like to see such a discussion arise from a study like Marijke Korenromp's.

* * *

Yvette den Brok works as a publicist

[xp38]

the usual nick for the Globe and Mail is the mop and pail

[Aquinasfan]

40 year-old Smyth writes that she and her 45 year-old lawyer husband do not “feel capable of raising a severely disabled child. It would be different if we didn't have a choice, but we do.”

Yeah, the choice to murder. < Shudder>

[after dark]

C. Smyth will become one of those women who will say that your kid is retarded if he or she trips once. She will have no patience for anyones short comings. Even worse she will attribute the existence of less than perfect people to selfishness. The parents were selfish for having children if they are not perfect.The parents were selfish for not having genetic testing done to their unborn babies.The parents were selfish for not killing their unborn babies once the tests proved the babies were imperfect. In fact, any less than perfect person is selfish if they do not kill themselves in order to make the world a better place for the perfect people.

[BlessedBeGod]

the doctor clears out the uterus

Is that the new feel-good euphemism for having an abortion?

Sick, sick, sick.

[Irish_Thatcherite]

Smyth writes, “Isn't it more cruel to bring a child burdened with so many disadvantages into the world?”

Nothing is more cruel than robbing someone of a chance at life!

[Richard Kimball]

She describes herself and her husband as financially secure yuppies, professional, with university degrees, who own their own mortgage-free house, and who are fit, healthy and looking 10 years younger than their age.

It sounds like she's also overcome her inferiority complex. God help the child who actually is born to these self-obsessed twits. They should just buy china dolls and set them up around the house, and rent a young looking adult to go to special events with them. She'd have a script and sit in the corner, except to come up every so often and say, "Gee, Mom, I want to be just like you when I grow up!" Then, they could drop her off at the acting agency, and never screw up a real child's life.

[Tench_Coxe]

"The child, said Smyth, did not meet her and her husband’s standards or fulfill their dreams of having a child athelete."

Methinks this couple should not be having children.
Sick. Very, very sick. And society has been there before in the 20th century--in Europe, it led to a horrific outcome.

[SuziQ]

Smyth writes, “Isn't it more cruel to bring a child burdened with so many disadvantages into the world?”

Nah, the cruelty would be burdening the child with such self-centered snob parents.