RoR: Forum

Post 0

Wednesday, September 17 - 2:32pm

Link

Edit

Financial burden to whom? Most children are financial burdens - if Provenzo were bankrupt, would retroactive abortion be advisable? Ah, 'objectivists.'

Post 1

Wednesday, September 17 - 5:38pm

Link

Edit

Geesh, hasn't he ever heard of "The Retarded Policeman??"

This guy supports himself by capitalizing on his "disability." (The idea breaks so many rules, I lost count!)

Josh, a man with Downs Syndrome, is forging whole new territories in entertainment. Very capitalistic of him, eh?

Post 2

Thursday, September 18 - 5:14am

Link

Edit

Pets also represent financial burdens but people have them for the sake of producing emotional rather than financial returns.

I see nothing inherently wrong with accidentally conceiving an impaired child and then choosing to bring it into the world in the interest of love, an emotional return.

I caveat my statement by saying that all support for such a child needs to come from the parents and those charitable people who also love children, thus changing the status of all such expenditures from "burdens" to "joys."

The monstrous phenomenon of parents who deliberately produce damaged children represents another matter entirely. See The Death of Right and Wrong by Tammy Bruce for the example of a deaf lesbian couple who deliberately conceive a deaf child via artificial insemination. I have profound moral issues with such a choice and consider that couple evil.

Post 3

Thursday, September 18 - 5:49am

Link

Edit

It's only the fact of "welfare" programs by states and the government that make this type of article possible. The writer was foolish to tackle and issue like this in this way. It's no one's business but the parents. He simply made an ass of himself, allowed objectivism to be smeared with a big brush due to his article, and failed to convince anyone else of his position, I'm quite sure. Objectivists consistently dissapoint me by arguing controvercial positions poorly, and generally making asses of themselves. Count me disspointed and disgusted. *SIGH*
(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 9/18, 9:49am)

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 9/18, 9:50am)

Post 4

Thursday, September 18 - 9:52am

Link

Edit

That someone would devote a whole article to this in such a fashion shows some meanspiritedness and lack of balance. However, as a good guideline, I think all older mothers should get an amniocentesis (or whatever current procedure they have now) and most should choose to abort if the baby does indeed have Down Syndrome.

The issue goes beyond the immediate ability to care for the child. Few parents can guarantee the lifetime support such a child will require through adulthood. Also, in most cases you are dooming the child to a lifetime on the margins of society.

Jim

Post 5

Thursday, September 18 - 10:14am

Link

Edit

"Also, in most cases you are dooming the child to a lifetime on the margins of society."

The same could be said for Objectivism.

Post 6

Thursday, September 18 - 10:29am

Link

Edit

Objectivism = high margins
Down's Syndrome = low margins

Post 7

Thursday, September 18 - 2:11pm

Link

Edit

Ted,

It's obviously not being top of the pops in society that's the issue here. The issue is that Down Syndrome adults as a population are marginally able to support themselves at best. If they could be Jeremiah Johnson and live independently for years without seeing another human being that would be a different issue.

My mother is a physical therapist who worked with developmentally disabled children. She would likely disagree with my assessment, but I think given foreknowledge, parents should not take on a burden like this or expect a child to face a lifetime of it.

Jim

Post 8

Thursday, September 18 - 2:26pm

Link

Edit

I don't think the issue should be framed from the viewpoint of the kids - they seem to be quite capable of being happy when cared for.

And that viewpoint seems too close to an altruist position of , "We must have the child for anti-abortion reasons," or, "We shouldn't have the child because he wouldn't be happy."

A mature, rational egoist perspective is needed on the part of the prospective parents - is this what they want, for the rest of their lives and are they mature enough to be able to judge that from where they currently are, and will they be responsible enough to ensure that the child will be taken care of if something happens to them, or after they are gone.

Post 9

Thursday, September 18 - 2:52pm

Link

Edit

Steve,

That was a terrific post and I'm struggling with the formulation of what I'm trying to say, but I'll give it another shot.

Regardless of whether parents would enjoy raising a developmentally disabled child, there is generally an end goal in parenting of wanting your child to able to successfully meet life's challenges on some minimum level. Suppose that you knew on some level that however much you loved them, they couldn't do that. Would it still be in your interest to bring them into the world?

Jim

Post 10

Thursday, September 18 - 3:30pm

Link

Edit

Well, the key part of your sentence is "in your interest" - if a parent's goal and happiness depend upon the child becoming independent, then it would be a bad idea to bring him into the world - it would be like taking a job for life that you don't like. If they are the kind of parents that love raising kids and enjoy the process and only care that the child is happy, and they are okay that this is what it will be for life, then it is in their interest. The trick is in having sufficient maturity, and knowing ones self that well, to make that irrevocable, lifetime decision.