I’m not going to delve into all the political details that emerged after Sarah Palin was chosen as John McCain’s running mate, but I do find one aspect particularly interesting. This has nothing to do with the personalities involved in this election but, rather a situation that has come, once again, to the forefront. Ms. Palin has a new son who has Down Syndrome… and considerable discussion has been triggered by that fact.
First, it should be acknowledged that her child’s condition was known before birth… it was not a surprise… and the parents made a conscious decision to continue with the pregnancy.
While it is really none of their business, it seems many don’t support the Palin family’s choice to allow the child to be born. THIS is what I find interesting.
There is a large political faction who advertise themselves as “Pro Choice” but, when a woman exercises “her choice” in a way that is contrary to their TRUE mission. Their real intent must be so stark that even THEY realize they must “present it” in the right way or it will sound bad to anyone who thinks about it. Given the loud outcry from such believers, though, it is clear CHOICE has nothing to do with it… unless the choice is what THEY strongly advocate: abortion.
There’s even worry in their camp that Ms. Palin’s popularity might start a trend!
It seems many such advocates are also first in line to support the needy, help the homeless, institute programs for drug addicts and those suffering from mental illness. I find it confusing they don’t also have sympathy for a tiny, helpless baby who has - by pure chance - an unfortunate condition. Are they just heartless?
Or do they just not think? That baby is a human being. What is the TRUE REASON behind their stance?
It makes me think of people who adopt pets at the shelter or rescue “ugly dogs“.
What is the problem if a family decides to have a Down Syndrome (or any other) baby?