The milk of human kindness flows thick and fast through the veins of some people, funny how a lot of them are atheists and/or Objectivists. Check out the following link, and don't forget to read the comments!
Some points: I don't necessarily agree with the Christians. For instance, if people with DS are just like us, some of them must be dissatisfied with life or irritated and so on. However, the claim that these people are missing the point of the original post doesn't really stand up either. The charitable reading they're trying to give it is that what they're saying is that people should have a choice, that the decision to abort a fetus with genetic or other abnormalities is just that, a person's choice, and they should be allowed to make it free from religious pressures.
However, given the claim that the only reason people knowingly have a child with DS or other disabilities is so they can display their faith, akin to the whipping scars on the backs of Catholics of the Middle Ages, and the corolary that if you're rational, the only real decision is to abort because otherwise you're not being rational and letting your faith lead you, belies this reading. Clearly the author and similar commenters feel just the opposite way from the Christians. For the Christians, aborting is wrong because it's a life and that's murder and God said no, hence, it is irrational. For the author, condemning your unborn child to a life of suffering is compared with child rape, and this is clearly irrational, better to illiminate suffering altogether.
I should add here that the author and similar folk aren't really doing reason and rationality any favors here. While I agree that the decision to have a child, disabled or otherwise, is a choice that should be made by the people involved and nobody else, clearly we've gone beyond that statement to some sort of whacky extreme. The author describes people with DS as "freaks", and several commenters seem to consider them subhuman. The author, interestingly, doesn't really seem to oppose that position. That's good, give the impression that reason leads to the categorization of some beings as subhuman and calls for their illimination. Way to go, you use that rational mind girlfriend!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Heh,
Given as I am still at least marginally sympathetic to some portions of some stuff that Ayn Rand said about a few things (how's that for a fuckin' disclaimer, yeah?!!!), These people annoy the fuck outta me.
And it's not just because I'm visually impaired myself :)
Isn't it odd how a philosophical system supposedly based on the "facts of reality" tends to to lead it's adherents to make sweeping a priori generalizations? For instance, there is a lot of historical evidence to support the idea that those often considered as physically "unfit" in some fashion tend to depend on their "wits" more, and as a result, become innovative and creative -- thus enhancing the productivity of the rest of civilization. In fact, assuming that you believe in the prevailing "neo-darwinist synthesis", it's a basic evolutionary principle that the very things which Objectivists tend to regard as essential human virtues -- rationality and technological development -- came about as a result of humans being physically "weak" in comparison to bigger animals -- smaller claws, less body-mass etc -- and so humans had to develop the mind to a greater degree.
So -- and this would really piss Objectivists off to admit -- those attributes which most constitute human greatness could only develop, and can only really "blossom" -- in the context of what they'd describe as "weakness" or "disability", and probably abort out of hand.
Additionally, notice how the guy flatly ignores the empirical fact that the effect of Down Syndrome is actually quite variable, and just a priori assumes that DS "victims" will end up as "drooling monstrosities".
Post a Comment