On my morning flick through my favourite blogs I spotted a story on Iain Dale's blog (The Desperation of the Left to Kill Sarah Palin's Candidacy: No 94 ) about a post on Daily Kos purporting to show that Sarah Palin is not in fact the mother of her fifth child, but it's grandmother.
There are various discussions online about veracity of the claim, and I don't intend to go into it here, but while following the arguments I came across a couple of responses which I found quite disturbing. A couple of people said that because Palin did not, upon discovering her child would have downs syndrome, immediately have it aborted she was morally wrong.
I make no bones about being generally anti abortion, but it was not the posters' obviously pro abortion opinions which distressed me as much as the fact that far exceeding the usual mantra of a woman's right to choose, they were seeming to suggest it was both insane (one of the posters referred to needing a "brain implant") and imoral not to abort the child.
I have not children at all, and do not know anybody caring for someone with down's syndrome, but there are many parents out there who readily talk of the issue in positive terms. Any disability will make life more difficult for all concerned, but to suggest that it should lead to the child being automatically exterminated without even having the chance to lve is unforgiveable.
Regardless of whether one agrees with Palin's views on abortion, to criticise her for holding to those beliefs despite the difficulty for herself and her family is a step to far.
Posts
15 hours ago
2 comments:
I agree with you Pete that the comments were a step too far.
I hate the term pro abortion though, I support the right of choice - but sometimes that choice is used as a method of contraception - and that is totally wrong.
The woman exercises her right of choice when she engages in consensual sex. Pregnancy is not a choice it is a consequence of the choice.
Post a Comment