Perceived genetic imperfections? It's only perceived? These children aren't, in fact, mentally retarded and don't live, on average, until only about age 30?Convinced that more couples would choose to continue their pregnancies if they better appreciated what it meant to raise a child with Down syndrome, a growing group of parents is seeking to insert their own positive perspectives into a decision often dominated by daunting medical statistics and doctors who feel obligated to describe the difficulties of life with a disabled child.
hey are pressing obstetricians to send them couples who have been given a prenatal diagnosis and inviting prospective parents into their homes to meet their children. In Massachusetts, for example, volunteers in a “first call” network linking veteran parents to new ones are now offering support to couples deciding whether to continue a pregnancy.
he parent evangelists are driven by a deep-seated fear for their children’s well-being in a world where there are fewer people like them. But as prenatal tests become available for a range of other perceived genetic imperfections, they may also be heralding a broader cultural skirmish over where to draw the line between preventing disability and accepting human diversity.
Well, whatever. Anyway, you might expect such a silly pro-life "save the babies" article from a church newletter.
Oh, wait! It wasn't a church newsletter, it was The New York Times. I thought they were pretty much in favor of abortion? I guess they have concerns about it cutting into their reader base.
2 comments:
Only the religious dogma behind the hypocritical "culture of life" is capable of sinking people to this level.
Choosing to have a child with severe mental and physical problems is a moral atrocity. There's no way to get around the fact that Down syndrome causes suffering in everyone involved, especially the child. The parents who support bringing more people burdened with this illness into the world only want to extend their and their children's suffering to everyone else. They should be named for what they are - evil.
I tend to suspect that the Times is trying to get in some information for all viewpoints. Another commenter here pointed out the hypocracy, and it would seem that's quite valid. You don't see all the pro-life people lining up to become foster parents.
Post a Comment