[Previous entry: "UK shadow immigration minister arrested over discovering secrets about illegal immigrants"] [Next entry: "Italian town offers 2,000 euros to immigrants who will leave"]

11/30/2008: "Arguments over the ethics of abandoning a child with Down's Syndrome"

Eugenics is one of those knock-down words used to silence argument. It was used several times last week, in radio discussions and articles about women choosing to give birth to babies with Down's syndrome.

The subject came up partly as advance publicity for a Sky Real Lives television documentary this Wednesday about a heroic young woman who adopted seven babies with Down's, whose mothers had rejected them. There was also a BBC news story last week suggesting that more women these days are knowingly choosing to give birth to babies with Down's.

In fact the news story was misleading.

More or less disguised was a strong tone of moral disapproval of anyone who feels that the birth of a Down’s baby is a misfortune, to be avoided if possible. Hardly anyone now dares to say so. The word "eugenics" is often used by Down's lobbyists to make the nasty suggestion that people who think it is right to abort a foetus with a Down's diagnosis are as bad as Nazis. This is argument by abuse.

[ Mongoloids and other similarly disabled children should be humanely killed at birth, it must be painful to have to decide to give the child into state care to have a horrible life, but that's still better than keeping it. Most healthy normal people have times as teenagers when they even contemplate suicide, so how cruel it is to perpetuate the life of a child who is at best nothing other than a pet for the parent determined to raise it, and at worst a huge burden upon them and upon the taxpayer to no positive end. In the Soviet Union disabled children were put in state care and also a bucket of water was kept where the mother gave birth and severely sub-standard infants were immediately drowned. It is only in modern times that it has become normal in the west to regard the disabled as if they were more important than the unimpaired. This is dysgenics. It even goes against "the golden rule" to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" so it is hypocritical of liberals to overlook that fact. ]



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article5258348.ece