The little fellow on the left is Trig Palin, son of Sarah and Todd Palin, born April 18, 2008. The Vice-Presidency of the United States might be in Trig's mother's future, but according to Nicholas Provenzo of the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism, Trig can look forward only to being "marginally productive (if at all)" and requiring "constant care and supervision." In fact, Provenzo feels that Sarah Palin's decision to give birth to Trig, rather than terminate her pregnancy, was immoral.
Provenzo goes on to to accuse Sarah Palin of participating in "the worship of retardation." He also posits that describing the selective abortion of fetuses diagnoses with disabilities as a form of Eugenics is a "dirty little slur" used by "anti-abortion zealots."
Perhaps Nicholas Provenzo should discuss the "marginal productivity" of adults with Down's Syndrome with Blair Williamson, a working actor with Down's Syndrome. He ought also to note that, for each Down's Syndrome baby detected and aborted, some estimates say that two non-disabled babies are miscarried due to invasive testing. He could also stand to note that young people with learning disabilities are applying to college at record rates. Maybe he should try to talk with Katherine Crouch, a woman with Down's Syndrome who's spending her time volunteering for the McCain campaign and recently met Sarah Palin. Then again, it's election season: Katherine's probably too busy to talk to Nicholas.
Maybe, then, Provenzo should just have a chat with Michael Gerson, who, like Nicholas, has written for the Washington Post. An excerpt from Gerson's column, in response to a characterization of Palin as a poor role model who might influence "unprepared" women to unwisely carry fetuses with Down's Syndrome to term:
"When the medical establishment encourages doctors to encourage broad genetic testing for genetic abnormalities, then emphasizes the hardship of raising a disabled child, eugenic abortion is not merely an 'option' but a recommendation. And people such as Sarah Palin, who resist the consensus against the elimination of 'genetic abnormality,' become a bad example, instead of a heroic one.
"This difference clarifies the most basic question of medical ethics: How do we improve humanity? By eliminating the 'imperfect' from among us? Or by showing our humanity, especially toward the 'imperfect'?"
You said it, Mike.
What about you, Disaboomers? What would you like to say to Nicholas Provenzo?
