Sunday, September 14, 2008

The Triumphs and Tribulations of Rasing a Down Child

The Washington Post has a sobering front page story about what it is like to raise a Down child: Credit the selection of Sarah Palin as Vice Presidential candidate for the interest shown. I was heartened by some of what I read, and very much appalled. From the story:

But the parents of children who have Down syndrome say that raising a child with a disability can also unlock profound and uplifting truths about themselves, their children and the value of life in ways that others could never see..."People keep asking me, 'So what do you think?' I keep saying, 'What is it exactly you want my opinion about?' '' Pedlikin said. "People are paying much more attention to us. . . . Before, kids would stare, but not adults. Everybody's curious: 'What's it like to have a kid with Down syndrome?' "

For Pedlikin and her husband, Philip, raising a boy with Down syndrome can be trying. They love their son deeply, act as forceful advocates for him and say his birth has changed their worldview in a positive way, but they acknowledge that their lives are much harder, more emotionally wrenching and often lonely...

Many parents also talk about how the phone never rings with invitations for a play date for their children or an offer to help carpool. Sometimes, they find themselves answering people who suggest that their child should never have been born
The sheer cruelty of this really set me back on my heels:
"My sister looked at me and said, 'Why didn't you abort her?' " Marsili recalled.
Can you imagine an aunt asking why her niece was permitted to be born? The answer was right on the money:
"I said, 'What? Because we love her, and she's my baby, and we love her!' 'But you knew,' my sister said. . . . It was pretty shocking. Even people that close to me."
I recall during the height of the Civil Rights Movement and in the years thereafter, we in the white community were urged to defend African-Americans as we lived our everyday lives, for example, by not laughing at racist jokes and speaking against racial stereotypes whenever we heard them. And over time, that made a huge difference. I am happy to say I don't remember the last time I heard a racist joke

Alas, as we emerge from the thrall of one form of bigotry, another seems to be growing--aimed particularly at people with profound cognitive or developmental disabilities. The best way to combat the new eugenics is to do what we know works; individual activism during our everyday lives in defense of our brothers and sisters with disabilities. The bigotry and social isolation of the kind depicted in the story can be overcome--as racism is being--if we commit ourselves to vocally and visibly disapprove of discriminatory statements and attitudes toward those with cognitive and developmental disabilites.

Labels:

17 Comments:

At September 14, 2008 , Blogger Joshua said...

I don't know if it is really bigotry.

There appears to be a difference, at least to me, between wanting to have a baby without a mental disabilities and actually thinking people without disabilities are superior.

It's a lot like the difference between being attracted to one race or one gender, and thinking that one race or gender is superior.

 
At September 14, 2008 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

Joshua: How would you feel if a baby wasn't wanted because of his or her race?

 
At September 14, 2008 , Blogger Kate said...

Great post! A quick note: I recently learned that advocates and individuals with Down syndrome prefer to avoid the term "a Down child" because it defines the child by their disability. I hear that the preferred term is "child with Down syndrome".

I've learned so much already by reading and following up on conversations inspired by little Trig- whether McCain/Palin make it to the White House or not I hope this can be an educational time for the whole nation.

 
At September 14, 2008 , Blogger Joshua said...

Wesley, I'm more logically consistent than you may think. I've no problem with a woman aborting her child because of the father's race, nor with pre-implantation selection for/against certain racial characteristics, nor with selecting a sperm donor based solely on race.

If the baby is already born, I'd think adoption would be the better option, but I wouldn't rule out infanticide either.

 
At September 14, 2008 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

So the child is owned by his or her mother even after out of the body? That is slavery. And if your ideas were carried out, it would be monstrous--not made any the less monstrous or any the less tyrannical because it wouldn't be the state doing the killing.

It is reminiscent of the old Roman legal concept of pater familias. The father owned his wife and children in the sense that he could kill them and there was nothing the law could do.

That is appalling.

 
At September 15, 2008 , Blogger Joshua said...

First, I don't think there is any intrinsic moral difference between a neonate and a pet rabbit. Aside from one being human and the other not, there really isn't one.

Until the child developed to the time when it becomes a person in its own right, it's just as much property of the parents as Benny, the pet bunny.

You are appalled, but I know a few people who would be appalled if somebody killed their own rabbit and cooked it for lunch. Being appalled is not a substitute for being right.

 
At September 15, 2008 , Blogger Donnie Mac Leod said...

Humanity is a lost cause in some circles Wesley. I couldn't compare a rabbit to a DS child anymore then I could compare a rock to Martin Luther King, Anne Frank or Ab Lincoln. The rabbit will always fail because it lacks human characteristics that the DS child has despite the extra chromosome. In fact a society of humanity should always be measured by how well it treats the weak and injured in our society. Without imprinting their plight upon ourselves we lose the most basic morality that makes us human.

 
At September 15, 2008 , Blogger Joshua said...

donnie, care to specify some of those human characteristics that rabbits lack but that all humans, or at least human infants, have? And you'd also need to demonstrate the moral value of that characteristic.

 
At September 15, 2008 , Blogger Donnie Mac Leod said...

Good Grief. If you need to have the characteristics that make a rabbit & a human unequal you aren't that aware of the human experience to begin with. The first and most important ::: The human is a moral agent and the rabbit isn't.

 
At September 15, 2008 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

Yes, but Donnie, according to a certain view NOT ALL HUMANS are moral agents, and thus they have the value of rabbits.

 
At September 16, 2008 , Blogger Donnie Mac Leod said...

Which is a point that displays a callousness towards humanity in favor of animaltarion versus humanitarian values that negates a lot more then the morality,creativity,species awareness and compassion of man. .

 
At September 16, 2008 , Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

"There appears to be a difference, at least to me, between wanting to have a baby without a mental disabilities..."

If a woman is pregnant with a fetus who has Trisomy 21, and she aborts it, that is not equivalent to having a baby without a mental disability. That is equivalent to NOT having THAT baby who does have a mental disability.

Abortion is not a treatment or cure, for the fetus.

Having a mental disability doesn't make a human superior. It also doesn't make him less of a human.

 
At September 17, 2008 , Blogger Joshua said...

donnie, are you going to base the rights of all humans on the compassion of fellow humans? Or is there a logical argument by which all humans can be protected?

laura, that's what I meant in the first place. I was thinking more of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis rather than abortion, but the point stands.

Oh, and being more or less of a human is irrelevant - a fact I'm trying to explain to donnie.

 
At September 19, 2008 , Blogger Donnie Mac Leod said...

You are trying to explain a pretentious fact of yours by indicating that you wish to negate a real fact, Joshua. To be a human one must leave the womb of a woman which thus makes the case that HomoSapiens are human. You were trying to write off the differences between a rabbit and a human, as non-existant.


My point that all humans are human whether as the Mensa intellectual or the mentally challenged stands on it's own merit. Yes I think wanting compassion for ourselves and our loved ones is a good starting point for basing rights in a human society. As the Lord's Prayer says forgive us our debts as we forgive the debts of others or forgive us our trespasses as we would forgive the trespasses of others or Do onto others as you would have them do onto you. Rabbits are not in that mix because NO rabbit understands the concepts, whereas a very small percentage point of humanity is unable to negotiate such concepts due to not having the mental faculties. However, that doesn't mean we can not extend the human bench mark to encompass those humans as we might be just as challenged tomorrow from an accident or a brain tumor.

 
At September 21, 2008 , Blogger Joshua said...

I don't think your group generalisations are valid. You cannot treat others based on how other members of their group are. So you can't protect severely disabled or undeveloped humans just because other humans have some morally valuable characteristic. Just like you can't prevent a 90-year old from driving just because every other 90-year old can't see very well. The latter example is ageism, the former is speciesism.

 
At September 22, 2008 , Blogger Donnie Mac Leod said...

You most certainly can offer the best of care to the weakest in society because of your own sense of MORALITY and ETHICS. It is those that don't have that sense of duty to help the weak among us that diminishes our humanity and our exceptionalism and it is the characteristic that you attack in the hope that you can make the rabbit equal to the man. Your analogy doesn't fly because we are trying to prevent the 90 year old from premature death due to advanced age and the fact he might need help to read his pill bottles to survive.

 
At September 22, 2008 , Blogger Donnie Mac Leod said...

Wesley made an interesting observation above when he noted " Yes, Donnie but according to a certain view not all humans are moral agents, and thus they have the value of rabbits."


He is right of course ,because some folk are to mentally challenged to understand the full circle of morals but that doesn't change the fact that intelligent humans are the moral agents that should protect the weak among us. It is my morals & ethics towards those weaker humans that makes me a human supporting weaker humans unable to defend themselves from those that would class a rabbit & human weakling as equals. I know Stephen Hawkings is perfectly capable of defending himself in a debate. However, if he, ended up in a foreign country and unable to speak their language some factors might change. If euthanasia is practiced there & without anyone to defend him, we might just as well make ready to make rabbit soup of one of the greatest Scientific minds of our century.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home