Trig Palin
Thursday, September 18th, 2008Apart from whatever political, pastoral, or other related opinions you or I might have, it is really great to see the love of the Palin family for their son/brother Trig put repeatedly in the media spotlight.
I at first intended to go a more positive direction with this blog post; more on that below. But while searching the internet for related material I came across some disturbing — not necessarily surprising, but nevertheless disturbing — results from scientific studies. And part of loving the weak and defenseless requires speaking out against the cruel and ruthless. So… did you know that 92% of children diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome while still in the womb are chopped up into pieces and sucked out of the birth canal with a baby crushing vaccum, or face a similar fate by other means? At least that is what we hear (in slightly more subtle language) according to a recent study:
Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: a systematic literature review
Authors: Caroline Mansfield, Suellen Hopfer, Theresa M. Marteau
Prenatal Diagnosis
Volume 19 Issue 9, Pages 808 - 812
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Abstract:
The aims of this systematic literature review are to estimate termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of one of five conditions: Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes, and to determine the extent to which rates vary across conditions and with year of publication. Papers were included if they reported (i) numbers of prenatally diagnosed conditions that were terminated, (ii) at least five cases diagnosed with one of the five specified conditions, and (iii) were published between 1980 and 1998. 20 papers were found which met the inclusion criteria. Termination rates varied across conditions. They were highest following a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome (92 per cent; CI: 91 per cent to 93 per cent) and lowest following diagnosis of Klinefelter syndrome (58 per cent; CI: 50 per cent to 66 per cent). Where comparisons could be made, termination rates were similar in the 1990s to those reported in the 1980s. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Here’s another study from 1978. I could be mistaken, and my apologies to the author if I am misunderstanding his language, but the abstract below seems to celebrate the “effectiveness” of abortion “in reducing the incidence of severe mental retardation.”
Title: Decline of Down’s syndrome after abortion reform in New York state.
Author: HANSEN H
Source citation: American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1978 Sep;83(2):185-188.
Abstract:
The report estimates the impact of the 1970 abortion reform on the occurrance of Down’s syndrome in New York State. The New York legislature removed restrictions on induced abortions during the first 2 trimesters of pregnancy. The sources of data were: 1) 2 series of newborns from the WHO Comparative Study of Congenital Malformations, 2) Jerusalem Perinatal study, and 3) 2 series from the U.S. Colaborative Perinatal Project. The maternal age-specific incidence from the 5 data sources were applied to the number of pregnancies in each maternal age group supplied by the New York State and City Departments of Health. In 1968 and 1969 the number of expected cases remained stable (383 and 379, respectively), and following the 1970 abortion reform the expected frequency dropped from 331 cases in 1971 and 293 cases in 1972. The decline in incidence of Down’s syndrome was attributable to an increase of induced abortions rather than a decrease of pregnancies, especially in New York City and in the older maternal age groups (35 or older). In the 5 years after abortion reform, the proportion of pregnancies terminated rose during the first 3 years and then stabilized. In the same time period, the estimated number of births with Down’s syndrome declined by 20 percent. The decline in Down’s syndome in New York State cannot be attributed entirely to the abortion reform, although the abortion reform was effective in reducing the incidence of severe mental retardation [emphasis added].
In addition to the important fact that man was made in God’s image, and destroying the image is an affront against God Himself, I believe that another reason that genuine disciples of Christ place a high value on all human life, including (even especially) the frail, weak, helpless, so-called “useless”, and disabled, is that we see ourselves in such as these. In fact, I mean that in two ways. First, many of the literally, physically weak, helpless, and disabled are precisely those whom God has chosen and called to Himself. He uses the weak and the things of the world that “are not” to shame the strong and the things that are (1 Cor 1). He does this to display His power and so that no man may have any reason to boast.
Second, even if we are not physically or mentally disabled (as measured by society), a disciple of Christ is someone who realizes that in ourselves we were utterly blind, deaf, dumb, and hopelessly unable to do anything to help ourselves. Indeed, we were born dead in sin (Eph 2:1). When we see someone who is dependent, someone who can’t make it on their own, someone who is in constant need of care and help, we don’t say like the pagans, “Oh what a burden on society, they need to be exterminated,” but rather we say, “Ya, … that’s me.”