Hi Electric Strawberry!
RE the above: No. I don't. What I think they're thinking about is that's it's okay, perfectly rational, to kill genetically defective fetuses. Somewhere upwards of 80 percent of Downs babies are in fact killed by their mothers in utero — and with a good conscience, I might add. After all, these babies are genetically defective; they are, in other words, not "fit"....
Why do you think Sally Quinn bears such implacable loathing for Sarah Palin? Palin stripped the mask off this little game and in effect said that genetic fitness or lack thereof is not a criterion that bears on the right to life, either at the inception of life (at conception), at its end, or any place in between.
Of course you are right: "One currently does not need a justification to have an abortion, under the law for ANY reason, let alone a DS baby." Yes. But what Sarah did was to "take off the fig leaf of 'respectability'" that so many women crave.... This is unforgivable to the Sally Quinns of this world, who — though they'd never admit it — are closet eugenicists.
You want to make "eugenics" about "gene pool considerations," and only that. You seem to be saying if someone does not directly invoke "the gene pool," then that person is not a eugenicist. Unfortunately, the logic of eugenics is not confined to manipulating the gene pool; it is ever more deeply subversive than that. It says that man, or a group of men, determine the criteria of what constitutes a "worthy" or "fit" human life. Lives that do not meet these criteria can be destroyed without remorse.
You wrote:
As a matter of personal belief....apply your God's standard all you want. Public policy? So long as you applying your God's standard without establishing religion....have at it.But that's exactly what the Declaration of Independence did, ElectricStrawberry — which holds as self-evident that you have certain God-given rights — life, liberty, property ("happiness") — because they are vested directly in you by your Creator.
U.S. constitutional law follows "God's standard" already. If you doubt that, we can have further discussion on that point.
Thanks so much for writing, ES!
I think I can agree with much of what you say on abortion/DS.....especially concerning Palin and her opening the eyes of those that have a DS fetus and might be thinking of abortion as an option.....might turn that percentage around a little and save some lives.
BUT, "eugenics" already has a definition and I will stick with it. It is the purposeful improvement of the human species by improving the genetic pool......either voluntary or forced.
If this was just "My baby tested positive for the BRCA1 gene, so I killed it in-utero" (or any other disease)......THEN it would be "eugenics" because the BRCA1 gene doesn't typically lead to breast cancer and potential death until after reproduction. So, the argument would be that one is improving the genetic fitness of the species by disallowing bad genes.
Concerning specific genetic defects like DS that leave the afflicted incapable of being part of the gene pool, it cannot be eugenics......so I must lay it on the parents simply not wanting to deal with what is going to be an unexpected ordeal for decades....when what they want is a normal healthy child and society has allowed the choice.
That society allows such a choice is the other half of the coin.
But that's exactly what the Declaration of Independence did
This is referring to "public policy" and "God". Well, the Declaration is not a governing document that sets public policy and governance. It is a statement of out intentions at the time, nothing more.
There's a reason why the very same people that talked of the Creator in a statement to an oppressive governmnet....purposely went and left God out of the governing document....public policy and governance.
BUT, I'll note that "among them" are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.....not the right to own a firearm as the argument was going. I wonder where this God-given right to own a firearm was before there were firearms.
I'd love to hear the short-version of "God's standard being in the Constitution" though. (probably won't get to it til tomorrow)