Daily Archives: November 20, 2005

Selfishness masquerading as compassion, once again

I wanted to post this on Tuesday, but I’ve been too busy to draft a full response.
After a really good story previously by a journalist who has a child with Down’s syndrome, in comes Maria Eftimiades, a 42-year-old who’s shacking up with a 52-year-old. Apparently, neither one of them has ever been married, and neither one has ever “had a child.” (I suspect they probably both have quite a few children, both together and with other partners, who are now praising God in limbo, but that’s another story).

So, fancying themselves a latter day Zechariah and Elizabeth, but lacking the divine messenger, these two were quite pleased to learn that Maria was pregnant. Eftimiades worried about the “insensitive” remarks from “second-tier” acuqaintances regarding their marital status.
Falling into that modern attitude that, as Judie Brown points out, sees children as commodities, Eftimiades “tried to be careful.” She insisted on eating “fresh fruit every day,” getting the “right” prenatal vitamins. . . .
“I even wrote to Starbucks to request they add black decaffeinated tea to their menu. (Herbals aren’t good for pregnant women,)” she notes.
Three good points made in the discussion at Amy Welborn’s site are
a) how she says “bad for pregnant women,” not “bad for the babies,
b) amniocentesis is far more risky to pregnancy than caffeine,
c) she exemplifies our society’s obession with having a “perfect child,” as if it’s some kind of competition with other yuppie parents.

Next comes this zinger:

One Sunday morning I told my softball friends I was pregnant and they cheered the prospect of a new player and told me I’d done the team well by producing a boy.

After all her discussion of “insensitive” comments about being unmarried, it’s funny to include this as a good comment, since I consider this the *epitome* of an insensitive comment, the kind of comment I’m constantly gritting my teeth about now that I have a son.

She quotes condescending comments that her mother made about her Catholic sister-in-law.
Then she uses the classic straw man of equating all pro-life demonstrators and sidewalk counselors with clinic bombers.
Now, she asks,

If your child will be born with a severe disability, is there a “Get Out
of Jail Free” card or are you still a baby killer?

Nope, sorry. It makes you worse than a baby killer; it makes you a Nazi.

And now the honest truth:

While I have no doubt there can be joys and victories in raising a mentally handicapped child, for me and for Mike, it’s a painful journey that we believe is better not taken

What she means is that it’s too “painful” for *them*, the self-centered and status-hungry parents.

Next comes, “To know now that our son would be retarded.”
a) She doesn’t “know” this. Amnio is notoriously unreliable as a diagnostic tool.
b) Interesting how liberals are the advocates of “politically correct” language until it hits them personally. Suddenly, “mentally challenged” is “retarded.” When it’s a liberal’s relative, “gay” is suddenly an insult.
c) Before she goes condemning people for being “retarded” or “mentally challenged,” Eftimiades better take a look in the mirror, and at the laundry list of fallacies she’s used in this piece.

Now, the greatest whopper of them all:
“I’m sure pro-lifers don’t give you the right to grieve for the baby you chose not to bring into the world.”
We’re not the ones who insist, “It’s just a blob of tissue.”
Has she ever heard of Project Rachel? Obviously not; after all, she thinks all pro-lifers are terrorists.
We’re the ones who believe life begins at conception. We’re the ones who get told that we’re not permitted to mourn the babies we lose to miscarriage or stillbirth, because to admit their reality would contradict the “pro-choice” mentality.
So when a woman miscarries and mourns her lost child, the “compassionate” pro-choicers send her a psychiatrist.

Yes, lady, the pro-lifers are the ones who won’t let you mourn.

Only now do I understand how entirely personal the decision to terminate a pregnancy is and how wrong it feels to bring someone else’s morality into the discussion.

Got news for you. “Wrong” is a moral term. This statement is itself a moral judgement, except that her morality is based solely on “feelings.”

As for that baby that will never be, I will remember him always. But I’m quite certain that I made the right choice for the three of us.

Sorry, he *was*, and he *is*, and you killed him. And I hardly see how that was the best decision for him. It may have seemed like the best decision for a couple of self-centered upper-middle-class materialists, but it’s sick to claim any compassion for the victim here.

I read about this in _Celebrate Life_

I used this link because it’s the best commentary I’ve read yet. Kirsten Johnson, a 26-year-old with brain damage, was taken to court by her legal guardian, her aunt Vera Howse, to order her sterilization because, as a mentally challenged person, she allegedly is incapable of caring for children.

That may be so, but let’s look at the following statement from a University of Chicago professor:

The article was about Kirsten Johnson, 26, who suffered a brain injury years ago
and today requires help with basic tasks. She is sexually active

If she only has the “cognitive abilities of a pre-teen,” then why is she sexually active? It’s funny. She’s allegedly incapable of the adult decision of having children, but she’s allowed to make the adult decision of having sexual intercourse?

How about taking her to court to force her to remain chaste? But *that* would be moral outrage to liberals. Then they’d be crying “individual rights.” Uh-huh. . . .

Now, in addition to the usual problems with birth control, sterilization violates the principle of bodily integration. The Church teaches that the body of an “innocent person” should never be altered except for medical necessity (many of us interpret this to include ear piercing, and it definitely includes circumcision).
The “innocent person” qualifier leaves room for corporal punishment of criminals, and that would seem to include sterilization under certain circumstances.

However, Kirsten Johnson is not a criminal. There is a clear alternative, stated above. And as “Minivan Mom,” whose post I linked in the title, points out, this just sets precedent for anyone deemed “incompetent” to care for a child, whether due to mental or physical disability.

Harold Pollack, the sociology professor above, throws out the following Culture of Death bugaboo:

“Would you stand ready to raise that child in the likely event that she proves unable? “
Short answer? Yes.

One of my favorite priests, Fr. Deusterhaus (can’t recall his first name; last I heard, he was active duty in Iraq), gave a homily on this very topic once. He said, “I don’t know a single family in this parish [it was a very conservative parish] who wouldn’t love to adopt a child that would otherwise be aborted. And I know every one of those families would very easily qualify for adoption, except maybe a couple families whose fathers work for parts of the government that don’t exist. . . .”

This is one of those issues that liberals like to claim are “complicated” and “heart-wrenching” as they goose-step along in their agenda of forced eugenics.

But it’s really much more simple. A person with the cognitive abilities of a child should not be having sex. Anyone having intercourse with such a person is no better than a pedophile.