Two Articles...what a contrast in attitudes
Minette Marrin has just written one of the most condescending/snarky articles (here) about people with Down syndrome that I have read in a long time. Her beef is with people who call the deliberate targeting of unborn babies with Down syndrome 'eugenics'...such an 'ugly' word, she says. So judgmental. Parents of kids with Down syndrome, she says, say that they have been blessed by their child, but Ms Marrin objects to that, because she feels condemned by their comments. Does anyone else see the irony here? She believes that 'eugenics' is an ugly word, yet she wholeheartedly endorses the abortion of babies based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome. If that isn't eugenics, what is? And if it is ok to abort a baby based on a diagnosis, why is it wrong to call it what it is?
She goes on to say that in her experience, a 'damaged baby equals a damaged family.'I beg to differ. Your experience is what you make it...from what I have seen, the vast majority of families have been changed for the better by the experience of having a family member with Ds. Many of those families have children with significant challenges, but the parents still feel blessed to have the child in their lives.
It always amazes me how people with no personal experience in raising a child w/Down syndrome feel qualified to tell us what it is 'really' like. How they are convinced that we must be either deluded or lying to actually believe that our childrens' lives are worthy, and how much better off everyone would be if we had simply done the 'right' thing and terminated our pregnancies.I am sorry to be so harsh in my comments, but I have had enough of people telling me that my son should not have been allowed to live. I am tired of people pretending that the act of 'termination' they are referring to so approvingly is just a 'choice', instead of the deliberate taking of another human's life. I am tired of people telling me that it is judgmental to use the word 'eugenics' when unborn babies are targeted for extinction based on a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. And I am especially tired of the smug attitude that it is somehow morally superior to 'support a woman's right to choose' rather than to say, flat out, that the very act of abortion is immoral.
India Knight has written a great rebuttal to Minette's article. It was really refreshing to see how completely India exposed Minette's article for what it is: the musings of a cold-hearted, selfish individual frantically trying to convince her readers(and, I suspect, herself) that it is somehow morally superior to kill babies with disabilities rather than accept these children as a persons worthy of our love and respect.
India's article here:
posted by KathyR
Compassion Deficit Syndrome
As Carol pointed out, some in the media seem to have an unusual way of commemorating Down Syndrome Awareness Month. A few years ago, I wrote the following essay in response to yet another article about that year's version of a "new and improved" prenatal test for Down syndrome:
Compassion Deficit Syndrome
CDS Identified as Factor in Death of MillionsBy Kathy Ratkiewicz
People who suffer from the disorder known as "compassion deficit syndrome"(CDS), which affects a great many individuals in our society, and has been a decisive factor in the death of millions, tend to have jaded world-views.
Instead of seeing children with Down syndrome as beautiful little people with almond-shaped eyes and winning smiles, they see "things" who "suffer from mental retardation" and are "deformed." Instead of seeing children, they see "choices"; instead of recognizing the humanity of people with disabilities, they tend to see them as "burdens" to be thrown off at all costs.
Unlike other syndromes, those who suffer from CDS are not born with the syndrome fully intact; it develops gradually. There are no generalized physical characteristics, but they do share common mental characteristics: over time their brains apparently malfunction to the extent that they believe that the best way to deal with people with other types of "handicaps" is to kill them. A striking characteristic of the syndrome is that those afflicted by it do not recognize the fact that they are, in fact, more disabled than the people they deem unworthy of life.
The real danger in the syndrome, however, lies in the fact that the brain malfunction serves to trick the CDS sufferer into believing that what he advocates is a desirable course of action; in some cases, the malfunction has progressed to such an extent that the CDS sufferer even believes that what he is advocating is an acceptable, moral, and even desirable solution to the problem of "unwanted" children or individuals.
They do have their creative sides, however. In order to accomplish their goal of ridding the world of ‘unwanted' individuals, those afflicted with CDS tend to use words fraught with mystery, words like "fetus" and "termination" when referring to "unborn babies" and "abortion." "Quality of life" also gets a lot of use, and CDS sufferers are extremely gifted in bringing it into discussions, no matter how great a stretch is needed to make it "fit."
They spin great swelling stories about children with disabilities: for example, they tend to lean heavily toward using the words "suffer," "retarded" and "deformity" whenever possible to try to help convince expectant parents that the "loving option" is to "terminate the pregnancy" of a "down syndrome fetus." They also excel in the medical arts, devising tests-not for the purpose of healing individuals, as would be the natural inclination of those not afflicted with CDS-but for the express purpose of eliminating those whom they have decided are not worthy of life.
Another almost universal feature of those afflicted with CDS is that they see themselves as compassionate, sensible and practical in their approach to unborn babies with disabilities. They speak of their "concern" for the child and parents, should the child be born "disabled." They speak of "options" and may say, "We only want what is best for you and your baby." They see themselves as compassionate when they are glad that new methods of detecting "deformities" in-utero are found-not so that they can cure the baby-but for the single purpose of giving mothers the "choice" of getting a "safe" abortion.
In reality, their hearts have become so hardened that they are incapable of understanding the joy that can be found in parenting a child with disabilities, as they focus on -and exaggerate- the negative aspects. A further, almost diagnostic characteristic of CDS, is the apparent inability of those afflicted with it to understand the concepts of nurturing, selfless love, and basic respect for life. They do not understand that you can accept and love a child, simply because he IS.
At present, since there is no known physical cure for those afflicted with CDS, the best approach is prevention. There is evidence to suggest that teaching children moral absolutes such as "Thou shalt not kill," and "Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you," are some of the best means at hand to stop the spread of this deadly syndrome. That-and lots of prayer.
