what gets me, though, is that Palin allowed herself to get pregnant at 43 and then tries to show herself some kind of hero by not aborting the down's sydrome kid. Okay, unless a couple is doing in vitro fertilization, wherein all genetically imperfect zygotes can be tossed out, getting pregnant over 40 is socially irresponsible. The risks are way too high. A woman who does this is not behaving in a responsible manner. And, unlike the teen girl who gets an unplanned pregancy, a 40+ woman definitely knows better. And let's just throw out some moral questions here: Why do people seem to assume that it is "better" to have a handicapped child than to destroy the fetus? Is dooming the person to a life of pain and/or shame ALWAYS better? What about the fact that a severely handicapped child costs far more to educate and care for medically? Is it truly better morally if everyone else must suffer as well? In "less-civilized" times and areas, it was considered a social duty for a mother to determine the quality of her offspring. A newborn that was too much of a burden for the group was to be destroyed. It was considered wrong for the mother to keep a child that would endanger or negatively affect the rest of the community, including other children. Now, I am not suggesting that handicapped people are less of anything. Nor am I saying that abortion is always right. I am saying that most people I meet or hear about seem to have a very narrow view of what being "morally correct" is. It is ALWAYS assumed that it is "better" to give the child life, no matter what, and that a woman who chooses otherwise is "bad." I'm not so sure that's true. She may have very high moral standards and be thinking of society as a whole having to pay for her choice.
Okay, I'll get off my philosophical soapbox. Sorry about the rant. You don't have to post it. I got rather carried away, and you were just trying to make a joke, after all. I'll go away now. Sorry.
No, but your point is valid, that life is not always preferable to death. My mother had terminal cancer, and had discussed with us the possibility that if life became too painful she would opt out. After she passed away, my brother and I had to flush several hundred percocet pills down the toilet that she had hoarded for that purpose. Fortunately her cancer never got that painful, it just made her more and more tired, but I had accepted that she might make that choice and supported her 100%. My biggest fear is not death, but instead living a miserable life with no chance of getting better. I did not quit smoking because it was shortening my life, the fear of living hooked to an oxygen mask, not being able to breathe or living with the pain of lung cancer is what made me quit.
My cousin put down her cigarettes (and I'd never seen her without one) right after her dad finally succumbed to lung cancer -- after several years toting oxygen everywhere. It's been 15+ years now, and she seems to be much healthier. Good for both of you. It's tough to quit.
Because one mistake deserves another 
3 comments:
what gets me, though, is that Palin allowed herself to get pregnant at 43 and then tries to show herself some kind of hero by not aborting the down's sydrome kid.
Okay, unless a couple is doing in vitro fertilization, wherein all genetically imperfect zygotes can be tossed out, getting pregnant over 40 is socially irresponsible. The risks are way too high. A woman who does this is not behaving in a responsible manner. And, unlike the teen girl who gets an unplanned pregancy, a 40+ woman definitely knows better.
And let's just throw out some moral questions here:
Why do people seem to assume that it is "better" to have a handicapped child than to destroy the fetus? Is dooming the person to a life of pain and/or shame ALWAYS better? What about the fact that a severely handicapped child costs far more to educate and care for medically? Is it truly better morally if everyone else must suffer as well?
In "less-civilized" times and areas, it was considered a social duty for a mother to determine the quality of her offspring. A newborn that was too much of a burden for the group was to be destroyed. It was considered wrong for the mother to keep a child that would endanger or negatively affect the rest of the community, including other children.
Now, I am not suggesting that handicapped people are less of anything. Nor am I saying that abortion is always right.
I am saying that most people I meet or hear about seem to have a very narrow view of what being "morally correct" is. It is ALWAYS assumed that it is "better" to give the child life, no matter what, and that a woman who chooses otherwise is "bad."
I'm not so sure that's true. She may have very high moral standards and be thinking of society as a whole having to pay for her choice.
Okay, I'll get off my philosophical soapbox.
Sorry about the rant.
You don't have to post it. I got rather carried away, and you were just trying to make a joke, after all.
I'll go away now.
Sorry.
No, but your point is valid, that life is not always preferable to death. My mother had terminal cancer, and had discussed with us the possibility that if life became too painful she would opt out. After she passed away, my brother and I had to flush several hundred percocet pills down the toilet that she had hoarded for that purpose. Fortunately her cancer never got that painful, it just made her more and more tired, but I had accepted that she might make that choice and supported her 100%. My biggest fear is not death, but instead living a miserable life with no chance of getting better. I did not quit smoking because it was shortening my life, the fear of living hooked to an oxygen mask, not being able to breathe or living with the pain of lung cancer is what made me quit.
My cousin put down her cigarettes (and I'd never seen her without one) right after her dad finally succumbed to lung cancer -- after several years toting oxygen everywhere. It's been 15+ years now, and she seems to be much healthier.
Good for both of you. It's tough to quit.
Post a Comment