Friday, September 12, 2008


From The News:
Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Ottawa, worries that Palin's now renowned decision may cause abortions in Canada to decline as other women there and elsewhere opt to follow suit.
He says not every woman is prepared to deal with the consequences of Down babies, who have developmental delays, some physical difficulties and often a shortened lifespan.
Wider use of blood screening and amniocentesis during pregnancies can now accurately predict the presence of Down syndrome.
Lalonde says his primary concern is that women have the choice of abortion and that greater public awareness of women making choices like Palin to complete a pregnancy and give birth to their genetically-abnormal baby could be detrimental and confusing to the women and their families.
YET:According to a 2005 survey of nearly 1300 parents of children with down syndrome, a majority reported that doctors "didn't tell them about the positive potential of people with down syndrome."

I wouldn’t have flinched if the “good doctor” had said he THINKS the rate of abortions will go down.
But No, He FEARS.
It sounds to me like he begrudges my daughter the air that she breathes.
I guess pro-choice is only for those who want to abort.


Kelly said...

You have to understand that Canada is a socialist country and our universal health care creates an environment that views the "burden" you "choose" to take on as everyone's "burden".

Consider which candidate wants to bring the US toward a more socialist system and who wants to bring universal healthcare to the US.

Many parents here are scrutinizing state budgets looking for some extra cash for their kids education. It goes way beyond funding dollars if you have a child with special needs.

rickismom said...

This post had nothing per se against abortion. While I am definately in my personal beliefs, against abortion, I would not vote on a candidate solely on that issue. Nor does the post have to do with candidates. (Obviously, those of us who are voting will need to take funding for special needs as a criterion to consider.)

What I am saying, is not only are we going away from the view that a baby has a right to live, we are reaching, quickly, the stage where the mother does not have the right to choose, is that choice will cost society money.
This attitude of "Why should we pay for your choice of a spcial-needs child is growing, and is very dangerous. The minute we see any person as an "expense", we are very quickly on the slope that says some people have a right to live, and some don't.

Anonymous said...

Kelly, I have no doubt that Rickismom understands the situation in Canada, even without reading her answer.

Rickismom, you 'get it' perfectly, as noted by Melody in a comment on 5minutesforspecialneeds. The implication that a genetic disorder is reason for death easily slides into disregard for the age of the person with the genetic disorder - esp. when viewed primarily on a cost basis.

From some I hear that 'pro-choice' has never been about choice. It's always meant pro-abortion. I hear, anyway. Barbara

Angie said...

In a "prochoice" world no one really has value.

RivkA with a capital A said...

Pro Choice is typically Pro Abortion.

I am pro choice. I think that mothers, who don't want their babies, should be presented with all their options.

Pro choice advocates frequently object to the activities of "alternative" organizations, such as Efrat, which offers financial aid to mothers who choose to keep their babies.