There's a story today about a couple with a Down Syndrome child being awarded $2.9 million for misdiagnosis. The couple say that they would have aborted if they had known the child would have DS. Predictably, that has brought out the pro-choice and anti-abortion protagonists, as, for example, in this from the NY Daily News: http://tinyurl.com/6t5w7gj
Now, I'm not for or against abortion, per se, and I think each instance should be considered on its own merits. There are many factors to be considered. But what really amuses me about the anti-abortion crowd, besides the fact that they tend to vote almost solidly Republican, is that they are not as concerned about the "right to life" after a child is born. The same people who gethysterically violent violently hysterical when issues like this story come up are usually the ones who oppose- among other things- health care to the indigent(or indeed health care as a right), financial support for poor young parents or a single parent, "free" quality education regardless of financial ability as many advanced nations(and some not so advanced) do for their citizens, environmental protections in areas and neighborhoods mainly populated by the poor(think "NIMBY"), minimum wage support and unemployment/social security benefits.
The concern for life should not end after a baby is born. The quality of life, access to needed healthcare, access to a decent education, the right to live in as unpolluted an environment as any other community, a working wage sufficient that parents can provide their child with adequate nutrition, clothing and uncontaminated housing, access to health care for the parents themselves so they can continue to take care of their children: these are also part of the "right to life", and I find it entirely hypocritical of the right-wing to trumpet their "pro-life" stance when their post-birth views stand in dire contrast to the very cause they claim to champion. I recall that when Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul whether a sick 30-year old with no health insurance should be allowed to die, the audience- comprised mainly of Tea Party Republicans- screamed "Yeah!". Is the right to life contingent on income? Does the income-independant right to life end after birth?
Now, I'm not for or against abortion, per se, and I think each instance should be considered on its own merits. There are many factors to be considered. But what really amuses me about the anti-abortion crowd, besides the fact that they tend to vote almost solidly Republican, is that they are not as concerned about the "right to life" after a child is born. The same people who get
The concern for life should not end after a baby is born. The quality of life, access to needed healthcare, access to a decent education, the right to live in as unpolluted an environment as any other community, a working wage sufficient that parents can provide their child with adequate nutrition, clothing and uncontaminated housing, access to health care for the parents themselves so they can continue to take care of their children: these are also part of the "right to life", and I find it entirely hypocritical of the right-wing to trumpet their "pro-life" stance when their post-birth views stand in dire contrast to the very cause they claim to champion. I recall that when Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul whether a sick 30-year old with no health insurance should be allowed to die, the audience- comprised mainly of Tea Party Republicans- screamed "Yeah!". Is the right to life contingent on income? Does the income-independant right to life end after birth?
No comments:
Post a Comment