that pro-abortion activists who decide to have children are also hypocrites. The very ambiguousness of the term ‘Women’s Reproductive Rights’ (the term itself, not the ‘main stream’ liberal definition) makes any statement concerning the decision of a woman to have a child a breach of that sacred right and by association, the good doctor’s comment out of order.

I would appear that only liberal women are enlightened enough to make such a call and conservative women who chose life even when ‘inconvenient’ are simply extremist robots in the lib’s eyes.

The good doctor also said this:

Kids with special needs require and deserve intense therapies and attention to their needs. That’s likely something Palin, with her political and social stature, can afford both financially and emotionally. But that may not be the case for other families, who have to struggle to balance work with home and family. They simply may not be up to the challenge of raising a child with Down syndrome.

bolding mine.

Oh really?

This assumes, oddly, that Governor Palin would not have to “struggle to balance work with home and family,” because of “her political and social stature” which will make her able to handle the struggle “financially and emotionally.”

Seems like emotional fortitude precedes political ascendancy for Sarah Palin — indeed, seems that it is one of the reasons for her political success — so I’m not sure how her “political and social stature” boost her emotional ability to handle the “struggle.”

And the governor of Alaska makes a touch over $81K — not exactly a ton of money for someone with five kids. So she’s not in a great position vis-a-vis other upwardly-mobile power women to handle the struggle financially.

The good doctor has fallen into the same trap anti-Palin blowhards have been falling into ever since she was announced — they are using a line of attack that easily and quickly recoils on their very own cause: in this instance, the case he “makes” against Palin is no case at all because the rules he applies to Palin, when applied uniformly to power-women in general, undercut the cause he champions.

Hoist on their own petard. It’s becoming a regular occurrence this cycle.

that Schindler was a hypocrite because he saved Jews while the Nazis would have allowed him not to.

Speaking of Nazis, Parikh’s argument sounds awfully familiar to how the Nazis started their campaign of extermination by arguing that there are certain lives not worth living. They first went after the disabled and “genetically imperfect”.

Parikh must have the IQ of a rock. Its amazing how the socialists have come full circle once again.

I told my doctor we were pro-life and she told us most of her pro-life patients still opt for genetic testing so they can prepare themselves for a special needs child.

Having said that, my test came back a “false positive” for Downs Syndrome. I have heard most of the babies aborted in the UK for Downs Syndrome turn out to be Okay and it was a false positive test. I guess because of their socialized health care system, they don’t do the adequate follow up testing.

Everything resolves to a choice made. Does he expect that if life did start at conception, god would have taken away that choice? God gave us free will. We all make choices and there is the responsibility that making choices incur. Palin Chose life. She has been a responsible parent. So has her husband. The pro-abortion crowd shuns responsibility because they choose not to support the life they would create. To that extent, I do not believe pro-abortionists recognize or respect their role in the life creating process. In order to justify their position, they promote a view that life does not begin at conception. It cannot for them, as even they would have to admit to being wrong. This lack of responsibility is troubling, but consistent. They don’t want to be responsible from a standpoint of preventing conception, but they think abortion is after the fact. Of course, as far as responsibility goes, socialism preaches collective responsibility. How nice. Anyway, in our society, making a choice with abortion exists. Either choice has it’s consequences, which is something Mr. Rahul Parikh did not address.
Jim Lagnese
http://www.the-right-guy.com

But this attack is silly. Having 4 children of my own, you always opt for all the tests. The reason is simple. More than prepare, you also look to see if there are things you need to do to improve the health of the Child.

Sometimes, early tests allow for you to do medical procedures that can change the out come.

The more that liberals make these silly attacks, the less they are able to focus on issues that might have an impact.

This is a huge hypocrisy. Whether or not she had the tests has nothing to do with anything. No matter what she found, her beliefs dictate her actions. And that cannot by hypocritical, because she is doing what she says!

However, as a person with a Down’s Syndrome brother, I am offended by the claims that by having this child she is “more pro-life.” I am offended by this because this is your child. If you didn’t want to have one, then you should not have gotten pregnant, as there are other methods besides contraception (if you are against that method). But because you wanted a child, you get what comes out! Down’s Syndrome or not! Will you love that child any less? If you do, that is when I will call you a hypocrite! But it is the responsibility of the parent to take care of the child no matter if s/he is diseased, developmentally disabled, or a genius. It is the responsibility of the parent to love the child no more and no less than their other children!

She is a good parent for keeping her child instead of trying to offload him onto an orphanage, but to claim that makes her more pro-life just screams to me that if she wasn’t, she may have considered the abortion. It demonizes the pro-life side of the argument, and that, is hypocritical to the message.