Wednesday, September 17, 2008

21st Century style.

I find it exceedingly repugnant, but not unimaginable, that in this day and age we still have human beings (using the term very loosely) that advocate the use of eugenics to advance their agenda regarding abortion.

The writer in question uses financial concerns and a perverse sense of morality to advance their arguments, but to this blogger, said argument fall on deaf ears, and for good reason.

The writer argues that parents have a moral obligation to raise children that are healthy, productive members of society, are not disabled in any way, shape, or form, for if a parent decides to carry to full term a child that is disabled, then that burden transfers back to society, and as such, society should not be responsible for the care of the child, especially if the parents are financially strapped. That argument is so reprehensible that it astounds the mind.

Does the writer rail against those mothers on welfare, whose child or children have been fathered by one or more men? No, he does not.

Does the writer rail against the absent father(s)? No, he does not.

Does the writer rail against the cost to society (you and me, the taxpayers) providing the child/children of those on welfare with Food Stamps, subsidized school lunches, medicare/medicaid, Section 8 housing, etc? No, he does not.

Rather, the writer rails against those parents that do not 'choose' to kill their disabled child, but would rather raise the child, nurture the child, and give it the emotional support all humans desire and

Granted, parents with special needs children face tasks that those of us who do not have those children will never experience, but in my dealings with these parents, they display courage, perseverance, and an abiding love for their child that the writer of the above mentioned nefarious article is incapable of displaying.

He is without a heart, without a soul.


  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by 2008

Back to TOP