Wonkette Hits Palin on Trig
I have long held that much of the irrational hatred directed at Sarah Palin--not political opposition, but the hatred--is because she dared to knowingly give birth to a baby with Down syndrome. This suspicion is heightened by this disgusting blog entry by the Wonkette blog discussing a picture of Trig held by his sister, dressed as an elephant for Halloween. It reads: Little baby Trig must be so glad he wasn't aborted for this, his first Halloween, because his parents dressed him up like a political party symbol to be carried around at snarling political events. Aww. Isn't life just grand?
The hatred is so thick you can cut it with a knife. And so is the bigotry. Ditto, the comments.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 1:55 PM
49 Comments
49 Comments:
Ricardo: I deleted your comment. I agree with your poinht that the comment is awful, but I didn't think the line about some people "should have been aborted," was right to say, although I know you didn't mean it in the way Wonkette did.
Thanks.
hehe sorry to have upset you Wesley... but somethings are just to deliciously EVIL to avoid writing :D
muahahahaha!
"puts hands together in Montgomery Burns fashion"
^^
If it is wrong to say that some children should have been aborted, it is therefore wrong to say that some people shouldn't exist. And therefore, designer babies (such as saviour siblings, clones or even the most outlandish ideal offspring of a couple of radical transhumanists) should exist - or at least it should be equally awful to say that such children should not exist.
I think, Joshua, that what's wrong in "designer babies" is not the babies' existence, but the purpose for which they were made to exist. In both cases of abortion and unnatural ways of conception, the children's existence is manipulated to suit self-focused purposes of those who happen to have power over them. They are not treated as humans but as objects to be discarded or used.
Joshus: There can be no right to exist before existence. It is nonsensical. There can be a right to life once you do exist. That's a huge difference.
Trig's birth symbolizes acceptance of all of us in unconditional love. Why that causes such fiery hatred is an interesting question of psychology.
Hi
I see that you are also into the elections.
We can win the elections!
Just have a look on www.rightpeopleforthepresident.com
This powerful viral tool that can make the difference by involving voters for a reason can be in your blog by a simple copy-and-paste, as you insert any photo or text.
Your blog has the power to make the difference. Don’t miss this opportunity for this last week before the elections. Insert your candidate’s player in your blog in 1 minute.
Paul
You are so right Wesley that Trig's birth symbolizes of all of us in unconditional love!
My own opinion is that people hate Sarah for giving birth to Trig...because it reminds them of a God who loves us...and accepts us with unconditional love.
Little Trig is as sweet,as cute, and as wonderful as any baby!!!
Oops...did not get your quote right about little Trig,Wesley! :(
Reading things like this do three things:
1) It helps me have confidence in the fact that I am not paranoid, eugenics has made a comeback and abortion is it's primary tool,
2)Makes me angry at the hypocrisy of anyone who claims to be concerned for the oppressed and then argues for the selective abortion of disabled people
3)Makes me feel somewhat helpless, as late term abortion seems to be giving way to letting already born infants die, which, to be fair, wasn't the orginal intent behind those who advocated for abortion rights-I feel frustrated that more pro-choice people aren't coming out and decrying such sentiments as irr-liberal and that it is so hard for ordinary citizens to take a visible, tangible role in fighting against these things.
We can't give up hope, though. Somehow we will be able to unite against such bigotry, no matter what our political convictions.
I think that the superficial reason that people hate Palin is as you stated, that she dared to purposely give birth to a Down syndrome baby.
But I think that the underlying reasons are twofold:
1) That she is a Republican. Republicans must be seen as monsters, and not as loving parents. Especially loving parents of a disabled child. If she was the Democratic nominee, she would be touted as an example that "choice" meant you could choose to abort or not, and that Democrats were the only choice for disabled individuals.
2) She induces a cognitive dissonance in those who up to this time have firmly believed that only Democrats will ever do anything good for the disabled community. Because of this deep belief in everything Democrats stand for, they have to be "pro-choice". But there's a nagging little voice inside of them that to oppose selective abortion would be to open up a crack in the "pro-choice" wall. And if they did that, they might also have to question other Democratic policies.
Therefore they must remain fervently pro-choice, even if it means that eugenics by abortion is allowed. Trig is a living reminder of what selective abortion is supposed to prevent. And it's really hard to throw all of your support to one party, when you realize that that same party advocates elimination of disabled individuals.
Joe
It's way more than Trig. It's about abortion. Abortion feminism told women that abortion was necessary to get ahead and keep her equal standing in society. Casey and Gonzales are pretty clear on that. So was Larry Lader the co-founder of NARAL. Palin is a successful executive. It's clear that her husband and kids didn't get in the way of her business or political success. Her life says that 50 million abortions weren't necessary. Many put off marriage and family for their careers only to see this woman do it all. Her life says that children, husbands and a large family are not obstacles to political success or whatever "success" they are looking for. Her life says abortion is not necessary to that kind of success. The left and the abortion feminists have no choice but to discredit and vilify her with all their might. It's way more than Trig.
"There can be no right to exist before existence. It is nonsensical."
Hey look, I agree with Wesley on something!
Now, I just want to make sure that whatever child I bring into existence isn't one with a disability like Down's.
Joshua said:
"Now, I just want to make sure that whatever child I bring into existence isn't one with a disability like Down's."
Just for the record Joshua; you or I do not, and cannot, bring anyone, "into existence". God primarily as first cause, and biological factors as secondary causes, do. Understand?
And by the way, you cannot get an "ought" from a personal preference. This is an extremely poor ethical epistemology. Try again.
A very astute observation Mr. Nelson. For some families that chose to terminate a pregnancy it must be a real slap in the face to see such a Jewel such as Sarah Palin walking through life with her morality intact and a value system built in unconditional love rising to the top.
Another point that shouldn't be missed. Our society as humans gains it's humanity values by helping those that are less fortunate then us.
Joshua, once it's conceived, it's in existence. The only way you can be sure that your child won't be brought into existence with Down's is not to have sex with a fertile woman.
And you can't be sure that a child of any age won't develop a disability "like Down's". Look into what meningitis can do. If your 10-year-old emerged from meningitis, let's say, deaf and with a learning deficit, would you kill her? (I'm kind of afraid of the answer I'll get here.)
...
To add to the cognitive dissonance about Democrats being supposed to be the party that looks after the disabled - let me point out that black babies are aborted at a rate almost five times that of white babies. You might think that a black presidential candidate might recognize this as racial genocide, rather than to be the candidate who pushes abortion.
"Just for the record Joshua; you or I do not, and cannot, bring anyone, "into existence". God primarily as first cause, and biological factors as secondary causes, do. Understand?"
No, I don't understand. There is no God, so how can she be the primary cause for anything?
Makes as much sense as saying the stork brings children...
"Joshua, once it's conceived, it's in existence."
Wouldn't it have also been in existence before that too, as a spermatozoon and an ovum (or as a nucleated somatic cell and ovum, if a cloned embryo)? Embryos don't just come into existence - they come from somewhere.
Note that I said 'whatever child I bring into existence'. A child, as a person, only comes into existence as their mind forms.
Joshua: Biologically, a human being comes into existence at the completion of fertilization or successful SCNT. Personhood, as you use the term, is a subjective concept designed to justify treating human lives as if they were less.
How the first lives began is a good question that science can't answer. How sexual reproduction began is a matter of informed speculation. But once it did, sperm and ovum are not individual human lives. They are just cells of a particular kind that can give rise to a new individual under the right biological circumstances.
So, scientifically Donnie and Laura are correct. A new human being comes into existence. If you decided to destroy him or her because he or she did not meet the criteria for a child you are willing to accept and love, that doesn't mean you are not destroying human life.
"Biologically, a human being comes into existence at the completion of fertilization or successful SCNT."
Do you have a justification for that assertion? I admit it seems plausible on the face of it, but I can't quite work out why an embryo would be a human being, rather than just a human cell.
"Personhood, as you use the term, is a subjective concept designed to justify treating human lives as if they were less."
It's no less subjective than the beginning of a human being.
"They are just cells of a particular kind that can give rise to a new individual under the right biological circumstances."
Why aren't embryos also 'just cells of a particular kind that can give rise to a new individual under the right biological circumstances'?
The beginning of a human being is biologically proven, as Wesley stated above. No subjectivity there.
Embryos aren't "just cells of a particular kind that can give rise to a new individual under the right biological circumstances". It is the new individual!
J: Take a look at an embryology textbook. At the completion of fertilization a new human being comes into existence. At that point its genetic makeup is complete, the sex it will be is determined, it is a unique and integreated indidividual complete on to itself. All of us began as a one cell human being called a zygote. Quickly cells divide and genes express. But who we are biologically is determined at that time. The outcome is not predetermined because we are the sum of our genetic expression, our phenomic expression, and our environment. But we are fully human, not just a cell.
In contrast, when I brush my teeth I kill cells. But they are pieces of me. They are not integrated individuals.
But you know that.
To expand on what Wesley said and answer what you said about sperm and ova: when a woman releases an ovum, it contains half the genetic material needed to define a person. There's an infinite number of people that ovum could become. When she has sex, there are millions of sperm that are available to that ovum, so there are millions of potential people. Once one sperm unites with the ovum, at that moment - and not one nanosecond before - there is the complete set of DNA that defines one unique individual. This is the one bright line separating not-life from life. Everything after this happens on a continuum.
How do you know when an individual's mind forms? When my daughter was born she screamed her head off. (This continued to varying degrees for several months, hence my being comfortable with my decision to have just one child.) She screamed while they made her footprints, weighed her, checked her out. But then they handed her to me, and I pulled the blanket back and spoke to her. When she heard my voice her screams quieted and she tried to open her eyes to see me. As soon as she was lifted away, the screams started again.
She heard my voice before she was born and she recognized it. So when did her mind form, Joshua?
Have we really stooped so low? Making fun of humans who happen to have a disabling condition; what a pure act of cowardice!
Not so very long our nation fought a war about the principle that certain people of African descent were actually full humans. Our modern day storm-troopers are all for throwing out the lessons of history and murdering those who are not deemed perfect.
What is the basis for this fallacious assumption that money and careers are somehow more valuable than a human life? You know what people say about assumptions? It makes an....
Wesley addressing Joshua:::
"So, scientifically Donnie and Laura are correct. A new human being comes into existence. If you decided to destroy him or her because he or she did not meet the criteria for a child you are willing to accept and love, that doesn't mean you are not destroying human life."
_______________________
A time of reckoning for people that do not believe that God created life. If they want to use the pretense that Joshua does that the egg being impregnated by the sperm isn't the beginning of life then they must deny that the swamp theory of evolution wasn't the evolutionary beginning of life. The argument is lost on their behalf because it is obvious that the DNA that made life in the swamp is verified by the fact that life exists from that humble beginning in an evolutionary sense.Joshua can not have it both ways without being disingenuous.
Blogger Helm Hammerhand said...
""Have we really stooped so low? Making fun of humans who happen to have a disabling condition; what a pure act of cowardice!""
_____________________
At the very least such comments are a cold act of a society becoming increasingly devoid of humanity. Helm.
-----------------------
Helm also appraises correctly.
"Not so very long our nation fought a war about the principle that certain people of African descent were actually full humans. Our modern day storm-troopers are all for throwing out the lessons of history and murdering those who are not deemed perfect."
___________________________
I certainly am pleased to have all races embrace our common humanity.
--------------------
Helm astutely questions::
"What is the basis for this fallacious assumption that money and careers are somehow more valuable than a human life? You know what people say about assumptions? It makes an...."
_____________________
The point of hatred towards Trig & Palin's existence is the fact that Palin has reached such lofty status without breaking her moral code or ethics. I find that refreshing whereas some narrow minded guilt ridden feminists hate her for her success. Palin proves that ethics and morals are quantities that can be maintained on the road to individual success.
"At that point its genetic makeup is complete, the sex it will be is determined, it is a unique and integreated indidividual complete on to itself."
If you knew the exact sperm and egg, you could also say that the sex has been determined and its genetic makeup complete.
"All of us began as a one cell human being called a zygote. "
Some of us began as two zygotes. Some of us have a twin who began as the same zygote. It seems far from clear to me that a zygote and the human individual are one and the same.
"Once one sperm unites with the ovum, at that moment - and not one nanosecond before - there is the complete set of DNA that defines one unique individual"
Nonsense. The nucleus of the sperm moves from the sperm cell into the ovum. That is all. The (pro)nuclei of the sperm and egg remain separate until the first mitotic division. I don't see how the distance the two sources of genetic material are from one another matters to the status of that material.
"She heard my voice before she was born and she recognized it. So when did her mind form, Joshua?"
My dog does that too. Anyway, the mind forms on a continuum, just as a human life forms on a continuum. I guess at some point, when the mind is self-aware or sapient, we can draw a line and say 'this mind is a person'.
"If they want to use the pretense that Joshua does that the egg being impregnated by the sperm isn't the beginning of life then they must deny that the swamp theory of evolution wasn't the evolutionary beginning of life."
This makes no sense. An egg is alive, and human. A sperm is alive, and human. No life formed, because none ended.
It is entirely logical to think that life began some 4 billion years ago, and life as a whole has never stopped since (although countless individual cells, and organisms, have died).
"My dog does that too."
Has anyone here denied that dogs have minds? You're the one claiming that the presence of a mind means that a person's life possibly shouldn't be snuffed out at another's will. My point is that if that's the case, an unborn child shouldn't be murdered. Or even a born child.
"Anyway, the mind forms on a continuum, just as a human life forms on a continuum. I guess at some point, when the mind is self-aware or sapient, we can draw a line and say 'this mind is a person'." What point would that be, exactly? As a pragmatic matter, how would you detect it? Brain waves? Fetuses have measurable brain waves.
Thanks Donnie, you capped that thought off very well. I couldn't agree more.
By the way Donnie, I met Sarah Palin's parents last night in the McCain HQ last night in Reno. We had a huge event and it was worth standing in the light rain before and walk through the pouring rain afterwards to see. I made the same observation to her about why the abortion feminists hated their daughter Sarah Palin. The Governor's life says that children and men are not obstacles to a woman's success in life. She liked it. The governor's parents are two of the most genuine, unassuming people I've ever met. When one of the volunteer coordinator's said to me "this is Sally" I just said "hi Sally, I'm Don Nelson." I thought she wanted tickets to Sarah Palin's event last night or a sign. Then the lady said, "this is Sarah's mom." "Sarah Palin?" "Yes Sarah Palin." I would have never known. They seemed totally unchanged by the campaign. It's too bad there aren't more people like them in Washington. They reminded me of my grandparents who never seemed to struggle with their sense of self or impress people with how smart/intellectual they were.
One more day of phone calls and literature drops and it's over. Every call, door knock, painted sign, putting literature on cars in church parking lots is to protect the next generation of 50 million babies, like Trig Palin, who are targeted for abortion and to protect the next generation from our generation's foolishness and the further instrumentalizing and dehumanization of human life. Not sure what's going to happen tonight, but it's all worth it.
Joshua said:
"No, I don't understand. There is no God, so how can she be the primary cause for anything?"
You cannot possibly know that the God of the Bible does *not* exist. This is an inductive argument based on your bankrupt epistemology of Empiricism. Unless you can close the induction it is false, as all inductive arguments are unless they can be closed based on a finite number of factors.
And curiously, you refer to this non-existent god as a "she". Why? I suppose it's intended to be a stab against the patriarchal God of the Bible who identifies and reveals Himself as Father, rather than a mother figure which you probably would prefer.
As I said before, try again. You cannot get an "ought" from an "is". Your Empiricism cannot furnish you with truth. It is inherently flawed and wanting. You exchange biblical, divine revelation for this fruitless epistemology.
The Bible alone is the Word of God and has a monopoly on truth.
Joshua said:
"Note that I said 'whatever child I bring into existence'. A child, as a person, only comes into existence as their mind forms."
This is begging the question. Try demonstrating the truth of this assertion rather than assuming this arbitrary and subjective definition of "existence".
Directly after the egg is penetrated by the sperm and the new life begins and the IMPRINT of the formation of mind body and spirit is on the road to adulthood. Such is the life of any human fetus reaching forward to it's individual place in human society. If that child becomes a lesson of leadership or a lesson in how human leaders should treat those less fortunate, is the platform where true humanity will be founded.
How unfortunate that some folks would rather castigate the morals & ethics that Palin displayed in choosing to accept Trig with love and hope for her child instead of being it's death merchant.
Joshua: "Wouldn't it have also been in existence before that too, as a spermatozoon and an ovum (or as a nucleated somatic cell and ovum, if a cloned embryo)?"
No. As has already been stated, a new human life begins at the moment of fertilization. Once sperm and ovum are combined, there is no mystery third "ingredient" or component that must be added. All an embryo receives after that point are nutrition and a hospitable environment -- two things we still need long after we're born.
I know as a man, I have no 'choice' but I would never, ever want a woman that I impregnated to abort our child because of Down's (or for any reason, but I'm being specific). I'd rather take care of the kid by myself. The liberals version of humor is rarely funny.
Paul, I'm not going to reply to you because your arguments are so far from the topic that they are irrelevant.
Donnie, your talk of spirit is mystical mumbo-jumbo.
bmmg39, actually, if you define 'hospitable environment' as 'one that allows the cell to develop into a person', then you could similarly say that an nucleated cell has that capacity (we've already reprogrammed them to pluripotency, so it doesn't seem impossible to reprogram them to a totipotent state - if the 'hospitable environment' was present).
As I've said, the existence of tetragametic chimeras and monozygotic twins makes the idea of the conceptus being continuous with the human person quite difficult for me to believe.
Joshua: Then you had better tell the leading embryology textbooks to change what they teach. They are misleading the doctors and scientists of tomorrow teaching that a new human organism begins at the completion of the fertilization process.
My complete statement was that each life at conception has the ability to develop the mind body and spirit of a human being. Humans have spirit as indicated by the never give up actions of a Stephen Hawkings. That FACT is not mumbo jumbo. Leave it to you to leave out two thirds of my equation as per mind & body and use deception to marginalize the will to fight for life (Spirit to live), Joshua.
Don Nelso Stated:
"Then the lady said, "this is Sarah's mom." "Sarah Palin?" "Yes Sarah Palin." I would have never known. They seemed totally unchanged by the campaign. It's too bad there aren't more people like them in Washington. They reminded me of my grandparents who never seemed to struggle with their sense of self or impress people with how smart/intellectual they were."
Don't know if you watched Amistad http://www.thewitness.org/article.php?id=206 , Mr. Nelson. There is a line in the movie that I believe all humans of conscience and understanding of human exceptualism can equate to. It also relates to the ancestors of Palin's children.
In the words of Cinque replying to his lawyer John Quincy Adams who asked : In a riveting scene, Adams is preparing Cinque for his appearance before the Supreme Court and ends by asking Cinque about the state of his soul.
Cinque's response is quite remarkable. Through an interpreter he says, "I am not going in there alone. I am going in there with my ancestors. I will call into the past, far back to the beginning of time and beg them to come and help me. I will reach back and draw them into me and they must come. For, at this moment, I am the whole reason they had existence at all."
Wesley, after actually studying embryology and reading quite a few embryology texts, I get the distinct impression that scientists think that a new human life cannot be defined to have began at any particular moment. Conception may be an important part of the early days of an individual, but hardly can it be said to mark the beginning precisely. After conception, the resulting zygote could form zero human beings, part of a human being, a placenta and a human, a placenta and two human beings. To say that a zygote is a new person may be a useful generalisation, but seems to be inconsistent with biological reality.
The fact is that there is no clear beginning of a new human being. Just like there is no clear time at which a new species can be said to exist. Science can only reveal what nature is - gradual - and only philosophy can put any sharp demarcations in that landscape.
Joshua said:
"Paul, I'm not going to reply to you because your arguments are so far from the topic that they are irrelevant."
That's fine Joshua. I realize that my comments were not in keeping with the general topic here, but I did not raise them myself. They were direct answers to your assertions. So therefore they are relevant.
If you are not willing to defend your atheism and empiricism, then stop making atheist claims that you cannot defend. And please stop making ethical charges based on your empiricism.
My first comment was completely relevant as it was a direct response answering your philosophically wanting position on "existence". My follow up was a direct response to your response, in which you made an atheist claim about the God of the Bible.
If theism/atheism, and your epistemology are off limits for discussion (subjects you yourself raised), then perhaps you should refrain from any further comment here.
BTW, anytime a person makes a claim to knowledge--especially on such a subject as ethics--it is always warranted to question their epistemology. For this is a most fundamental question. That is, please define and defend how you know what you claim to know. Indeed Joshua, how do you know anything at all?
Thanks, Paul
As someone with a learning disorder, I would like to say that I like being a person with a learning disorder-it is part of who I am, and I am very happy that no test has been developed to detect NVLD before birth. I'm glad that I did not have parents like Joshua growing up, or ones like those who adopted a child from the same adoption agency as my parents adopted me from, who returned their son to the adoption agency once they discovered that he had a disability. In contrast to displays of such prejudice, my parents raised me, for better or for worse. Joshua-you are fooling yourself if you think that you are a tolerant individual, yet would encourage your partner/wife/significant other to abort based on disability. You are no better than someone who encourages abortion for babies who are of mixed ethnicity. Disability and ethnicity are both aspects of diversity, and your comments show that you are anti-diversity in at least one of those areas.
The fact is that there is no clear beginning of a new human being.
Which is actually an argument for erring on the side of caution, not for assuming carte blanche as you do.
Hello Bernhardt:: The trick for Joshua is that he can move goal posts by using his rather subjective negativity against the human that Joshua would execute as he sees fit.
Paul, I know because I have faith, just as you do. I'm not like those atheists who instead that their position is based on the evidence - no god or gods exist, and I have faith in this.
safepres, I don't discourage diversity - if somebody else wants to have a mixed-race (or even mixed-specie) child, I'd defend their freedom to do so. But I'd also defend my freedom to be able to choose what sort of child I have.
bernhardt, perhaps you are right. We can't say for sure that sperm are not human beings (they are, after all, genetically unique human cells with the conditional potential to develop into that which we would certainly call a human being), and therefore every sperm should be considered sacred (although this also assumes that what is a human being is also intrinsically valuable - a premise I don't agree with).
Joshua, you still don't get it. Sperm is a building block, not a human organism. Is a ham sandwich "human" because it becomes incorporated into your body when you eat it?
"As I've said, the existence of tetragametic chimeras and monozygotic twins makes the idea of the conceptus being continuous with the human person quite difficult for me to believe."
The "twinning" argument has been addressed time and time again, in the book EMBRYO, for example.
If we cannot prove that an embryo is a human being, if personhood is purely philosophical, then ANY of us can be considered a non-person.
"Sperm is a building block, not a human organism."
And the zygote is not a building block because...?
"If we cannot prove that an embryo is a human being, if personhood is purely philosophical, then ANY of us can be considered a non-person."
But you can't PROVE anything with science, and therefore personhood is philosophical. Which is what I would have thought it was in the first place.
Again, nothing is added to the zygote. It's not as if there's a third mystery component that's added three months after fertilization that turns a non-human-being into a human being.
Can we start regulating other people as non-people, if all it is is philosophical? Dangerous ground, man.
"I don't discourage diversity - if somebody else wants to have a mixed-race (or even mixed-specie) child, I'd defend their freedom to do so. But I'd also defend my freedom to be able to choose what sort of child I have."
Are you asserting that you would encourage your partner to abort if the fetus involved was of mixed race? If you are, at least you are being consistent.
Secondly, I would like to emphasize the fact that you, Joshua, actually have no say in what your spouse or significant other does in regard to her pregnancy. You do not have the right to decide what kind of child you want, because you cannot force the woman involved to have an abortion if she doesn't want to, just as men who do not want their partners to have abortions have little or no say in whether she has one.
Thirdly, "my right to choose the kind of child I want to have," is precisely what eugenicists wanted to do years ago.
P.S.-Whoever heard of a "right to choose the kind of child I want to have?" Is that in the constitution somewhere? Was that some part of the women's rights movement that I missed? Was Martin Luther King fighting for this on the side? Can we order children by mail, now? "$30,000- White, blond haired, blue eyed, male, approx. 1 day old, IQ 150, handicaps: none, layway available."
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home