Diary

NBC Analyst: Washington Post Article Touting Nazi-Style Eugenics is Really Courageous

This September 2017 undated photo provided by the Warren family via Gerber shows 14-month-old Lucas Warren of Dalton, Ga. Lucas' contagious smile won over executives at Gerber baby food who have made him their "spokesbaby" this year. Lucas is Gerber's first spokesbaby with Down syndrome in the company's 91-year history. (Courtesy Warren family/Gerber via AP)

I wrote an article several months ago on the subject of abortions and down syndrome. It specifically referenced the media’s praise of Iceland for “virtually eliminating” down syndrome among it’s population. Of course the tool for that was abortion, not some breakthrough in science or treatment.

I try to be understanding of opposing viewpoints even when I disagree.

For example, on gay marriage my personal belief is in traditional structures but I don’t see the point in government being involved either way. Others do think the government absolutely has to validate traditional marriage. While I disagree with gay marriage as an institute, I don’t really think I gain anything by having the government stop it. In my opinion, hearts are changed at a personal level, not by an act of the judiciary.

In all those different positions, there’s room to disagree, find middle ground, and at least understand each other.

When it comes to abortion though, it’s tough. I just don’t see the middle ground and the left refuses to cede it anyway.

That’s exacerbated by the pro-abortion movement’s continual need to go to further extremes on the issue. No longer can you even get away with saying that you think late-term abortion is wrong in the Democratic party. What essentially boils down to Nazi-style eugenics are now mainstream positions.

Enter this Washington Post piece and response by NBC Analyst Ken Dilanian…

From the article Mr. Dilanian links to…

I respect — I admire — families that knowingly welcome a baby with Down syndrome into their lives. Certainly, to be a parent is to take the risks that accompany parenting; you love your child for who she is, not what you want her to be.

But accepting that essential truth is different from compelling a woman to give birth to a child whose intellectual capacity will be impaired, whose life choices will be limited, whose health may be compromised. Most children with down syndrome have mild to moderate cognitive impairment…

…This means limited capacity for independent living and financial security; Down syndrome is life-altering for the entire family.

I’m going to be blunt here: That was not the child I wanted. That was not the choice I would have made. You can call me selfish, or worse, but I am in good company. The evidence is clear that most women confronted with the same unhappy alternative would make the same decision.

This is as jaded as it is morally defunct. Listen to the argument and replace some of the terms with black, jew, or gay and see if her statement “that was not the child I wanted” would hold up under current liberal inter-sectionalism.

I’ll oblige this writer by saying yes, you are incredibly selfish and shallow. Preemptively addressing a criticism doesn’t invalidate criticism. Most Germans supported the Nazi party under Hitler. That didn’t make them in good company. It just made them in a lot of bad company.

You know what’s life-altering? Life. Things happen continually that change the course of how you think life should play out. A child going to college alters my bank account. A child getting into a car-wreck and becoming paralyzed alters my life. Should I be able to kill them to avoid the hassle? Of course not.

This is especially sick because of the fact that children with down syndrome do live to old age in our modern, technologically advanced society. They get jobs. They marry. They even have children of their own. Along the way they are some of the most loving, caring individuals you will meet.

Am I being hyperbolic by comparing such actions to Nazism?

No. Hitler’s regime quite literally performed abortions and sterilization specifically to weed out certain races, disabilities, and traits in their quest to propagate a “master race.” Eugenics as a term also has a meaning. If you don’t like that your belief line with that meaning, then it’s your beliefs that are the issue.

One of the things Nazis did was test IQ to decide who lives or dies. Aborting a child with down syndrome is no different. You are making a determination of their level of intelligence and then choosing to deprive them of life based on it.

Does the fact that it was sometimes forced (but it was also simply encouraged by the Nazis in many cases) vs. elective change anything about the depravity of an act? Logically, no, it does not. An outcome is either morally corrupt or it isn’t. If someone forces me to shoot another person, I may not be personally morally responsible, but the death of that other person is still immoral and wrong.

“But they banned contraception for women they approved of to up the birth rate!” liberals will shout, making comparisons to Mitt Romney or the like (no, Romney did not actually want to ban contraceptives). Ok, thank you for that tip on why banning contraceptives is bad. Now how does that show that killing a child in the womb over a disability is moral?

Do liberal’s lose their minds when you make these comparison? Of course they do, but just because something is uncomfortable doesn’t mean they get to dismiss it. The same exists with slavery comparisons. Do liberals hate them and want them to not be made? Yep. Does that make it any less logically sound of a comparison? Nope.

Specifically on this NBC Analyst, it’s not courageous to state that you’d kill a child with a disability because you thought it’d screw with your career plan.

Courage is raising a child with special needs and giving them the best life possible. Courage is not taking the easy way out and never giving them any chance of any kind of life at all.

Another thing you’ll notice about many of the loudest, most extreme abortion advocates is that they’ve never had an abortion themselves. The person saying this is courageous is a man who will never have to test his theorem on how courageous he thinks this actually is. The writer of that Washington Post piece is so sure she’d of aborted a child with down syndrome, but would she of and how would it of affected her emotionally down the road? We can’t know because she never actually faced that choice. It’s easy to signal your beliefs when you don’t have to actually follow through on them. It’s another thing to actually play them out.

While middle-aged baby boomers continue down this path, millennials are actually moving further right on abortion. It’s much the same dynamic you saw among younger abolitionists in the 19th century opposing their elder counterparts. A supporter of slavery could not only argue that blacks had no right to life but they’d tell you why it was the moral position to own slaves. You’d often hear arguments about levels of intelligence in those debates. With abortion of children with disabilities we hear the same rationalizations.

More and more people aren’t buying it though and that scares the pro-abortion lobby.