Monday, September 01, 2008

New low

Sanctity of Human Life
Every human being, from the time of his conception, is a creature and child of God, made in His image and likeness, an infinitely precious soul; and that the unjustifiable or inexcusable taking of life is always sinful. -Affirmation of St.Louis, 1977

This is not a political blog. Nonetheless, on the life issue, just as the slavery issue 150 years ago, politics and morality get mixed together. When political issues and moral issues intertwine, it is necessary to make a statement.

Writing for the Baltimore Sun, Susan Reimer criticized John McCain's choice of a running-mate, Sarah Palin Governor of Alaska, as unfit to hold office for a reason that the writer believes to be self-evident: In her September 1, op-ed Reimer wrote: "You want to look good to the Evangelicals? Choose a running mate with a Down syndrome child... A woman who made the decision to carry to term a baby she knew to be developmentally disabled."

No argument was made to explain why this should be held against Gov. Palin. Apparently, in Ms. Riemer's world, it is obvious to her readers that any mother who does not choose to snuff out the life of a handicapped child is not fit to become Vice President of the United States. Equally disturbing to her anti-life view is Ms. Reimer's assumption that the public actually is duly horrified.

Reimer went on: "Does McCain think we will be so grateful for a skirt [sic] on the ticket that we won't notice that she's anti-abortion...?" Since when is the abortion issue a women's issue among voters in the United States? The old game of treating liberal abortion laws as a women's issue is not only dishonest, but insulting. Many of the pro-life leaders and advocates in the U.S. are women, and many of the pro-abortion advocates are men- after all, a certain kind of man has the most to gain from shifting the burden of "doing the right thing" when contraception fails.

But, to add to this worn-out claptrap some new idea that the public should recoil from a mother because she chose life for a disabled child, and then to assume that the public reaction will be to shun such a mother, is a new low, even for modern liberals. Happily, I think Ms. Reimer's assumption is dead wrong, and that most people will not be horrified.

It is worth adding the perspective of history. Often people wax over-dramatic by comparing people to the Nazis. In this case, however, it is not over-dramatic at all. The fact is, in the ideology of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party, Reimer's view was the only permitted view. If Mrs. Palin's Down Syndrome child had been born in Hitler's Germany, he would have been killed by the state.

Why don't these modern liberals realize that they are embracing Nazi ideology by trying to create a super race, free from the defilement of disabled people? For now, their only difference with Hitler is that they want it to be done by a mother's choice rather than by legal mandate and force. If, however, they continue to assume that the public embraces their view, they are not far from accepting, in their own minds, this very kind of government intervention.

Politics aside, Mrs. Palin made the only choice that pleases God, since the alternative would have been murder. For us, that is the only issue for anyone facing this same choice.


Anonymous said...

On related subject matter: I read somewhere a story to the effect that Pope Benedict had a cousin who was developmentally disabled and didn't survive the Nazi period, being considered ein lebensunwertes Leben. Don't these 'pro-choice' people realise that the concept of ein lebensunwertes Leben is exactly what the have chosen? On the rare occasions these days when I see a mother with a Down syndrome child my prayers go up for them, because I realise that when that child was about to be born, the mother made a deliberate choice to do the right thing and go to term and not to do the socially acceptable thing and kill the baby. Somehow I don't see choice as liberating or empowering.

poetreader said...

Hear, Hear!

One can certainly think (as in fact I do) that, on other issues, it would have been hard to choose a less suitable canditate for the job, but one is bound on any sane ethical standard to applaud the woman, with great fervor, for such a caring action and such lifelong devotion.


BillyHW said...

The Palin family walks the pro-life talk.

Canon Tallis said...

Father Hart asks "Why don't these modern liberals realize that they are embracing Nazi ideology, and trying to create a super race, free from the defilement of disabled people?" The answer is simple although it is one that we don't want to face. But when they share on an almost issue to issue basis the same ideiology, then one has to conclude that they are in fact much if not exactly the same.

As Americans we do not want to believe that people, in fact a whole political party of people, have come to share the same ideals, the same hopes and dreams of two of the most savage barbaric ideologys of modern times. These are our neighbors. Our children have gone to school with theirs and yet they have come to believe that the only ideas which one can freely hold are theirs. Anything else is not allowable. In the end they will sweep away all of the constitutional guarentees of any freedoms which get in the way of the totalitarian society which they desire.

Laugh, chuckle, wag your head in disbelief, but it can happen here. And it will unless we muster the courage and the smarts to stop them. Why do you think they took over the Episcopal Church and are looking to take over as many others as they can? Who will be their storm troopers? Just look at what happened today at the Republican Convention.

Anonymous said...

It's pretty strange when abortion is framed as a "women's issue." As a former fetus, I think I'm qualified to have an opinion on the wholesale slaughter of truckloads of unborn babies every year.

Thank you for pointing out this chilling reminder of the depravity of our culture.

Fr William Bauer said...

I spent 23 years working with individuals with disabilities. I never met a dvelopmentally disabled person who thought he should be dead.

Anonymous said...

Sanger was a eugenecist but the modern pro-abort movement is motivated by the modern-advanced-liberal vision of radical individual freedom. Even healthy children are a burden to realization of this freedom and disabled children even more so. These people aren't crypto-Nazis but their vision of a better world is just as disturbing.

What's the Anglican position on artifical contraception? I'm not saying that it's the same thing as abortion, but both seem to carry a "children are a burden not a blessing" mentality.

Anonymous said...

I am very proud of the choice of
Gov. Sarah Palin for V-P on the Republican ticket for two reasons.

(1) Gov. Palin knowingly chose to love and give birth to a child she knew might be born with Down's Syndrome. Not only does this show she is pro-life, it shows she is a loving mother. That, in itself, says something important about her character, that would make me want her as V-P.

(2)Gov. Palin showed her commitment to pro-life, and the fact that she did her best to raise her daughter to be pro-life, by unashamedly saying her unmarried, pregant daughter was going to keep and raise her unborn baby. How many public officials in today's world might have forced their daughter to have an abortion to avoid a scandal to their political ambitions? More than we
care to think about, I'm sure.

We know Barack Hussein Obama's position. He said, "I wouldn't want my daughters ruining their life by having a baby" in explaining his support of abortion, and even partial birth abortion.

1928 BCP Supporter

poetreader said...

I don't believe this forum is the proper place to engage in arguments over electoral politics, but I believe there are a couple of things that have to be said.

1. Mrs. Palin is certainly to be commended for her pro-life stand, especially for her willingness to raise her beautiful Downs baby.

2. Mr. Obama's stand on abortion is most certainly deplorable.

3. This is not the only issue in this campaign, and it is quite possible, on Christian grounds, to find equally serious objections to the Republican candidates on other issues.

4. I can only think of one reason for using Mr. Obama's unfortunate middle name in such a prominent way, when one does not stress the middle names of either McCain or Palin, and I can't find the trumpeting of prejudices to be worthy political discourse.

As I said, I do not believe this to be the appropriate place for this kind of discussion. Christians need to evaluate political issues as best they can, and Christians will end up differing in their conclusions. I've posted this merely as a plea that we all respect these differences, even if we do not agree.

ed pacht

Anonymous said...

We're proud of a particular Christian woman and this Christian woman is to be commended because she didn't butcher her child? How low have our expectations become? Not murdering her baby is demonstrates the sort of character we want in a VP?