Friday, September 12, 2008

Canadian Doctors Worried Sarah Palin May Bring Down Abortion Rate

I have to give credit for this find to Right Girl. She posted the link on Twitter.

It seems that Sarah Palin’s decision to keep her son Trig instead of aborting him has doctors worried in Canada that this may have a chilling effect on other women carrying Down’s Syndrome babies. The chilling effect? She may spur other women to keep their babies. Gasp. Article here.

Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), told the Globe and Mail yesterday, "Palin's decision to keep her baby, knowing he would be born with the condition, may inadvertently influence other women who may lack the necessary emotional and financial support to do the same."

"The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada," he said.

Under the facade of "freedom to choose", Lalonde said that "popular messages" about women like Palin, who choose not to kill their unborn children, "could have detrimental effects on women and their families."

"We offer the woman the choice. We try to be as unbiased as possible," Lalonde said. "We're coming down to a moral decision and we all know moral decisions are personal decisions."

Here is this “choice” word again. This has been used a lot lately to Attack Gov Palin for being against women having the right to choose. This attack is getting older by the minute. They are not concerned about choice. If they were, they would celebrate her “choice” to have her baby.

We, as conservatives, have sat around and let the left, assisted by the left leaning media, to define the abortion debate. Look at the words used to describe the positions in the debate. Those of us who are against abortion call ourselves pro-life because we support all life from the time of conception. The media calls us anti-abortion. Now, for the record, I personally am comfortable with this label because I am, in fact, anti-abortion. People who support abortion rights are “pro-choice” according to the media. The point is, if they are pro-choice, we should be pro-life. If we are anti-abortion, they should be called pro-abortion (or, anti-life?).

I realize that this seems like semantics but it gives the pro-abortion people a psychological advantage with the public. We are not taking our stand because we support life, we are mean and uncaring because we are “anti” abortion. The pro-abortion people though aren’t for abortion, they’re for a woman’s right to choose. The other part of this is that it sterilizes the abortion debate by removing the word from their stance. We aren’t debating abortion, we’re debating “choice”. How can we live with ourselves.

Krista Flint, executive director of the Canadian Down Syndrome Society, said, "Many of the country's medical professionals only give messages of fear to parents who learn their baby will be born with the genetic condition."

"It's very dark," she said in the Globe and Mail report. "They hear a lot about the medical conditions that are sometimes associated with Down syndrome. They hear about the burden . . . it places on children and a marriage."

"They hear about things like shortened life expectancy. They hear a lot about the challenges of a life with Down syndrome. That's why Mrs. Palin has become an example that could possibly stem the tide of families who abort fetuses after a positive determination for Down syndrome," Ms. Flint said.

"We know overwhelmingly the message families get is 'Don't have this baby, it will ruin your life,' and I don't think people would look at Sarah Palin and see a ruined life," Ms. Flint said. "Regardless of politics, I think it's a good example."

Statistics show that between 80 – 90% of Down’s babies are aborted in Canada (approximately the same as the US).

Further, do notice that the group concerned about this effect on abortion is the group of doctors that perform abortions. Their abortion mills are money makers. Their crocodile tears for these poor women being deprived of their right to abortion is nothing more than tears over the loss of their cash cow.

As I said earlier, the attacks against Gov Palin are not about choice. They’re about her making the wrong choice, according to some. The fact that anyone can look at pictures of her beautiful child and think he should have been killed in the womb is stunning. I have to believe that the people holding these views have made a serious wrong turn somewhere in their lives. To be at a place emotionally that they can hold these views is a foreign concept to me.

I believe the real issue among the “kill the babies” crowd is fear. Sarah Palin is putting a face to the abortion debate. Trig Palin is not a Down’s Syndrome baby that was imperfect and therefore should have been aborted, he’s a beautiful gift of life. This scares the pro-abortion people because the public may start coming to grips with what abortion really is, it’s a choice to commit infanticide.

11 comments:

cube said...

Bringing down the rate of abortions... isn't that what everyone, on both sides of the political aisle, can agree on?

Sheesh!

Randy said...

As a husband of a special needs teacher, I've seen a lot of children with disabilities (Down Syndrome and others). For two years she taught a Trainable class (kids who probably will never live on their on), since then she's taught higher functioning kids (kids who won't earn a degree, but will probably get a job).

The kids with Down Syndrome are some of the most spectacular. She's a middle school teacher and I learned that these pre-teens and teens are just like regular eduction kids in almost every way. She was able to teach them so much more than anyone expected because she challenged them.

To call one of these children a "choice" is so wrong.

Brooke said...

Keeping "defective" babies?

Gawd forbid the lefties loose their eugenics!

shoprat said...

Sad that progressives have regressed to murderous eugenics and have reduced life to an economic impact.

Chuck said...

Cube, it's curious that the left keeps saying they want fewer abortions yet whenever there is a move to reduce them, they scream.

Randy and Brooke, I find it hard to believe that anyone can look at these children and feel they should have been aborted. I worked for awhile in a group home, a couple of the men were profoundly retarded and quite dependant on care. They still laughed, went to school, etc. In short, their life still had value. Granted they were not something important to society like a lawyer or politician, but...

Shoprat, I have thought for years that abortion was all about money. Forget this whole "choice" nonsense. Look no further than who the parties are in these lawsuits trying to overturn laws in state courts, they're abortion providers. It is a sick way to make a living.

MK said...

Good post Chuck. It's amazing how some people in the medical profession can say that ending life is somehow better than giving it. Isn't that something doctors have sworn some sort of oath to do, try and save a life under all circumstances.

If such people came across a car accident and saw it was a disabled person stuck in the car, would they just drive on by, cos i'm sure being wheel-chair bound isn't something people want.

Perhaps these people ought to be calling for better support for families with Downs children not calling for them to be put down in the womb or has moral bankruptcy just become acceptable now.

Bob said...

I do tons of reading, and follow all races very closely. To be honest, I had no idea what the pinhead meant by the "Bush Doctrine". Did Chuckie ask this question to Obama?

Maybe I am missing something here. I am curious how many writers here, honestly, knew what the Bush Doctrine is.
Charlie Gibson is an example of why women will come out in droves to vote for the McCain Palen ticket.

Chuck said...

MK, couple of things. First, as an RN, I have always been puzzled about how physicains and nurses get around the moral dilemna of taking a life. Second, the car accident plays into my analogy about sanitizing abortion. It's easy to allow abortion when it's a choice and your getting rid of a fetus. This is why the abortion lobby and the far left have been fighting so hard to keep us from calling the unborn a child.

Bob, this was nothing more than a gotcha question. Sounds like the interview was full of them. I visited your site. Good reading, I added you to my blogroll.

The Practicalist said...

I don't think we'll ever get the media to label things the way they really are. But throw those labels into your conversations at the office, and see if it doesn't back those libs off their high horse. It's easy to control the conversation when you sterilize the terminology. But that's just "putting lipstick on a pig." (Sorry, it just seemed to work here.) When you talk about the pig in pig terms, you get a much more honest conversation.

Great site!

Chuck said...

Practicalist, thanks for stopping by. I have found over the years that a lot of liberals that "support" abortion don't really know what it is. It is a horrible, violent procedure. We would not be able to treat animals this way (I am not advocating that we do) but it is ok to give a woman a "choice" to do so if she desires. Again, welcome and stop by again.

Aurora said...

Excellent post, Chuck. And kudos to you for posting it.
Absolutely unbelievable that these leftists have the nerve to talk about 'moral issues' when they're murdering the unborn by the thousands and then beating on someone like Sarah Palin for choosing to have her own DS child. I have two sisters who were BOTH pressured to have abortions by their doctors for one trivial reason or another. One was told her child was DS. She went ahead and had him (of course) and he's the most delightful and fully normal child. That said, I think Downs Syndrome children are a particular delight in their own right.
The fight against the rising tide for more and more murderous, draconian abortion laws is the defining fight of this New World Order. This is going to be one of the major issues that separates the sheep from the goats. No-one can afford to be complacent.