What kind of people are we becoming, and what we can do about it?
A number of my friends have children with disabilities. Their problems range from cerebral palsy to Turner’s syndrome to Trisomy 18. But I want to focus on one fairly common genetic disability to make my point. I’m referring to Trisomy 21, or Down syndrome.
Down syndrome is not a disease. It’s a genetic disorder with a variety of symptoms. People with Down syndrome have mild to moderate developmental delays. They have low to middling cognitive function. They also tend to have a uniquely Down syndrome “look”—a flat facial profile, almond-shaped eyes, a small nose, a short neck, thick stature, and a small mouth that often causes the tongue to protrude and interferes with clear speech. People with Down syndrome also tend to have low muscle tone. This can affect their posture, breathing, and speech.
Currently, about 5,000 children with Down syndrome are born in the United States each year. They join a national Down syndrome population of roughly 400,000 persons. But that population may soon dwindle. And the reason why it may decline illustrates, in a vivid way, a struggle within the American soul. That struggle will shape the character of our society in the decades to come.
Prenatal testing can now detect up to 95 percent of pregnancies with a strong risk of Down syndrome. The tests aren’t conclusive, but they’re pretty good. And the results of those tests are brutally practical. Studies show that more than 80 percent of unborn babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are now terminated in the womb. They’re killed because of a flaw in one of their chromosomes—a flaw that’s neither fatal nor contagious, merely undesirable.
The older a woman gets, the higher her risk of bearing a child with Down syndrome. In medical offices around the country, pregnant women now hear from doctors or genetic counselors that their baby has “an increased likelihood” of Down syndrome based on one or more prenatal tests. Some doctors deliver this information with sensitivity and great support for the woman. But too many others seem more concerned about avoiding lawsuits, or managing costs, or even, in a few ugly cases, cleaning up the gene pool.
We’re witnessing a kind of schizophrenia in our culture’s conscience. In Britain, the Guardian newspaper recently ran an article lamenting the faultiness of some of the prenatal tests that screen for Down syndrome. Women who receive positive results, the article noted, often demand an additional test, amniocentesis, which has a greater risk of miscarriage. Doctors quoted in the story complained about the high number of false positives for Down syndrome. “The result of [these false positives] is that babies are dying completely unnecessarily,” one medical school professor said. “It’s scandalous and disgraceful . . . and causing the death of normal babies.” These words sound almost humane until we realize that, at least for that professor, killing “abnormal” babies such as those with Down syndrome is perfectly acceptable.
In practice, medical professionals now can steer an expectant mother toward abortion simply by hinting at a list of the child’s possible defects. The most debased thing about this kind of pressure is that doctors know better than anyone else how vulnerable a woman can be when she hears potentially tragic news about her unborn baby.
I’m not suggesting that doctors should hold back vital knowledge from parents. Nor should doctors paint an implausibly upbeat picture of life with a child who has disabilities. But doctors, genetic counselors, and medical school professors should have on staff—or at least on speed dial—experts of a different sort.
Parents of children with special needs, special education teachers and therapists, and pediatricians who have treated children with disabilities often have a hugely life-affirming perspective. Unlike prenatal caregivers, these professionals have direct knowledge of persons with special needs. They know their potential. They’ve seen their accomplishments. They can testify to the benefits of parental love and faith. Expectant parents deserve to know that a child with Down syndrome can love, laugh, learn, work, feel hope and excitement, make friends, and create joy for others. These things are beautiful precisely because they transcend what we expect. They witness to the truth that every child with special needs has a value that matters eternally.
Raising a child with Down syndrome can be hard. None of my friends who have a daughter or son with a serious disability is melodramatic, or self-conscious, or even especially pious about it. They speak about their special child with an unsentimental realism. It’s a realism flowing out of love—real love, the kind that courses its way through fear and suffering to a decision, finally, to surround the child with their heart and trust in the goodness of God. And that decision to trust, of course, demands not just real love, but also real courage.
The real choice in accepting or rejecting a child with special needs is never between some imaginary perfection or imperfection. The real choice is between love and unlove, between courage and cowardice, between trust and fear. And that’s the choice we face as a society in deciding which human lives we will treat as valuable, and which we will not.
Nearly 50 percent of babies with Down syndrome are born with some sort of heart defect. Most face a lifelong set of health challenges. Government help is a mixed bag, and public policy is uneven. Some cities and states, like New York, provide generous aid to the disabled and their families. In many other jurisdictions, however, a bad economy has forced budget cuts. Services for the disabled have shrunk. In still other places, the law mandates good support and care, but lawmakers neglect their funding obligations, and no one holds them accountable. The vulgar economic fact about the disabled is that, in purely utilitarian terms, they rarely seem worth the investment.
That’s the bad news. But there’s also good news. Ironically, for those persons with Down syndrome who do make it out of the womb, life is better than at any time in our nation’s history. A baby with Down syndrome born in 1944 could expect to live about twenty-five years. Today, people with Down syndrome routinely survive into their fifties and sixties. Most can enjoy happy, productive lives. Most live with their families or share group homes with modified supervision and some measure of personal autonomy. Many hold steady jobs in the workplace. Some marry. A few have attended college. Federal law mandates a free and appropriate education for children with special needs through the age of twenty-one. Social Security provides modest monthly support for persons with Down syndrome and other severe disabilities from age eighteen throughout their lives. These are huge blessings.
And, just as some people resent the imperfection, the inconvenience, and the expense of persons with disabilities, others see in them an invitation to be healed of their own sins and failures by learning how to love. About 200 families in this country are now waiting to adopt children with Down syndrome. Many of these families already have, or know, a child with special needs. A Maryland-based organization, Reece’s Rainbow, helps arrange international adoptions of children with Down syndrome. The late Eunice Shriver spent much of her life working to advance the dignity of children with Down syndrome and other disabilities. Last September, the Anna and John J. Sie Foundation committed $34 million to the University of Colorado to focus on improving the medical conditions faced by those with Down syndrome. And many businesses now welcome workers with Down syndrome. Having a job and earning a paycheck gives these special employees pride and purpose. These things are more precious than gold.
Every child with Down syndrome, every adult with special needs—in fact, every unwanted unborn child, every person who is poor, weak, abandoned, or homeless—is an icon of God’s face and a vessel of his love. How we treat these persons—whether we revere them and welcome them or throw them away in distaste—shows what we really believe about human dignity, both as individuals and as a nation.
The American Jesuit scholar Father John Courtney Murray once said that “Anyone who really believes in God must set God, and the truth of God, above all other considerations.” Here’s what that means. Catholic public officials who take God seriously cannot support laws that attack human dignity without lying to themselves, misleading others, and abusing the faith of their fellow Catholics. Catholic doctors who take God seriously cannot do procedures, prescribe drugs, or support health policies that attack the sanctity of unborn children or the elderly, or that undermine the dignity of human sexuality and the family. And Catholic citizens who take God seriously cannot claim to love their Church and then ignore her counsel on vital public issues that shape our nation’s life. God will demand an accounting. As individuals, we can claim to be or believe whatever we want. But God knows our hearts better than we do. If we don’t conform our hearts and actions to the faith we claim to believe, we’re simply fooling ourselves.
We live in a culture in which marketers and media compulsively mislead us about the avoidance of suffering, the denial of death, the silliness of virtue, and the cynicism of religious faith. It’s a culture of fantasy, selfishness, and illness that we’ve brought on ourselves. And we’ve done it by misusing the freedom that other generations worked for, bled for, and bequeathed to us for safekeeping.
What have we done with that freedom? In whose service do we use it now?
John Courtney Murray is most often remembered for his work at Vatican II on the issue of religious liberty and for his great defense of American democracy in his book We Hold These Truths. Murray believed deeply in the ideas and moral principles of the American experiment. He saw in the roots of the American Revolution the unique conditions for a mature people to exercise their freedom through intelligent public discourse, mutual cooperation, and laws inspired by right moral character. He argued that, at its best, American democracy is not only compatible with the Catholic faith but congenial to it.
But Murray had a caveat. It’s the caveat that George Washington implied in his farewell address and that Charles Carroll—the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence—mentioned in his own writings. America depends as a nation on a moral people shaped by their religious faith and, in a particular way, by the Christian faith. Without that living faith animating its people and informing its public life, America becomes something alien and hostile to the very ideals it was founded on. As his caveat, Murray wrote this:
Our American culture, as it exists, is actually the quintessence of all that is decadent in the culture of the Western Christian world. It would seem to be erected on the triple denial that has corrupted Western culture at its roots: the denial of metaphysical reality, of the primacy of the spiritual over the material, [and] of the social over the individual . . . Its most striking characteristic is its profound materialism . . . It has given citizens everything to live for and nothing to die for. And its achievement may be summed up thus: It has gained a continent and lost its own soul.
Over the years, I’ve learned that when God takes something away from a person, he gives back some other gift that’s equally precious. A friend of mine has a son with Down syndrome, and she calls him a “sniffer of souls.” He may have an IQ of 47, and he’ll never read The Brothers Karamazov, but he has a piercingly quick sense of the heart of the people he meets. He knows when he’s loved—and he knows when he’s not. Ultimately, we’re all like my friend’s son. We hunger for people to confirm that we have meaning by showing us love. We need that love. And we suffer when that love is withheld.
We need to be the best people we can be. And, first, we need to be the best Catholics we can be. By our words and by our actions, we need to be witnesses. So: Speak up for what you believe. Love the Church. Defend her teaching. Trust in God. Believe in the Gospel. And don’t be afraid. Fear is beneath your dignity as sons and daughters of the God of life. Changing the course of American culture seems like a huge task. But St. Paul felt exactly the same way. Redeeming and converting a civilization has been done once. It can be done again. But we need to understand that God is calling us to do it. He chose us. He calls us. He’s waiting, and now we need to answer him.
Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M Cap., is the archbishop of Denver.
Comments:
Does this make ANY sense to anyone? What am I missing here?
Or to put it another way: Abortion is the "only moral choice" only if you're unacquainted with what the word "moral" means.
That's not the "key question", djmullen. In fact, using that logic could rationalize a lot of horrible behavior. I wonder what the "sniffer of souls" would think your heart.
How is abortion the moral choice? How is the ending of a life - and that's what abortion is - the moral choice? Having a child with a disability is not equal to crippling a normal child at birth, that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard anyone say in quite some time. Having a child with a disability is giving that child a chance at life, which is apparently something you are not willing to do. I'm sure that the disabled of the world feel better knowing that there are still folks out there who remain convinced that they'd have been better off never having been born.
You completely missed the boat on this one, friend, and apparently the entire point of Archbishop Chaput's piece as well.
Until what age can a mom and dad decide to start over because my 10 y/o is driving me nuts;)
Damage "done to him" by whom?! It's not like someone chose to make him someone with Down's Syndrome.
As for your claim that abortion is "the only moral choice if prenatal tests indicate the child will be born with Down's syndrome," you could not be more wrong. Follow your flawed logic, and why don't we just abort anyone with a genetic disease, from arthritis to alzheimer's?
Your judgment that life is not worth living if one has a significant medical ailment sadly defines a human being by their disease or disorder, things entirely out of their control, while what most makes us human is our choices. Thank God some see that truth, and take action contrary to that which you prefer.
Besides, you put forth a terrifying moral principle. You are essentially saying, "If a person contracts an illness or disorder that no moral person would give that individual voluntarily, then it is morally good to kill that individual."
Follow that out with cancer, AIDS (which is terminal), and the plethora of terrible conditions that afflict the human race. You'd turn the hospitals into Auschwitz.
Or are you suggesting that it is only acceptable to do this to unborn humans? If that is the case, don't veil your language with a false sense of mercy; state the hidden premise that unborn life is not inherently valuable and does not possess a right to live. All else is smoke and mirrors.
I wouldn't inject my children with anything harmful. Through fallen creation all of us carry damage bodily and mentally. I wouldn't inject them to cause any more harm not already fallen upon them by an imperfect world.
Life itself is good although its endurance can be challenging for all of us. To avoid the challenge is the cowardice the Bishop is talking about.
Now, I'm not one to lightly go into reductio ad Hitlerum, but that cavalier attitude towards people with disabilities merits exactly that. As a family member of a person with special needs, I find your comment to be not only offensive, but odious, reprehensible, and dare I say, downright EVIL.
"if the answer is "No", then abortion and starting over is the only moral choice..."
I am genuinely and respectfully curious: What is the ultimate Truth or Good that defines this moral choice?
Thanks for this beautiful essay...
I take it that you do not personally know anyone with Down's Syndrome. Knowing many people with Down's Syndrome, I can tell you that in my experience you see no sign that such people feel that a great damage has been done to them, especially so great a damage that they would rather be dead. What makes aborting a child with Down's Syndrome "the only moral choice?" I cannot see any way of justifying such a statement. Your comment shows a profound disregard for human diginity as made in the image of God and lack of love for your neighbor.
Personally, I refused testing other than ultrasound. The results would have changed nothing.
I respectfully ask you for your definitions of love and moral. Are your definitions solely reserved for by those you/society define of "perfect or healthy "?
By your definitions do you believe that we humans, including you, are capable of giving/receiving love if not perfect or healthy?
No human is perfect or healthy. We all, each and every one of us, have imperfections and health issues so does that mean we are not capable of giving or receiving love?
Only God is perfect so are you saying that He is the only one capable of giving/receiving love?
I certainly hope you can find it in your heart, as an imperfect/unhealthy individual, to allow yourself to be loved by God and to love others and receive love from them as well.
Our married vocation is a gift of God's to allow us to become conformed to Him. To learn to love fully and to become Christ-like. This is where our moral choice should start. Is aborting the baby bringing me closer to Christ or is it a selfish decision made out of self-love?
Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground."
Now I can think of no reason to believe that the original earthly paradise was significantly smaller than what we now have. Therefore unless God did not really mean or was just "kidding" about man having "dominion" over all these creatures over the whole of the earth, then (to borrow from an old television show) Adam and Eve would have had "powers and abilities far beyond those of [modern] man". In order to exercise this dominion or control over all these creatures they would have made Superman seem an inconsequential weakling.
Comparing this to what we are now shows that we are all of us really, really fiercely handicapped compared to what God originally intended for us. So we really have no business pointing to someone and saying, "He is disabled, to the point of not having a worthwhile life - unlike me!" We are all terribly disabled, and we need to help each other.
"But the key question is: "If your friend had a normal baby, would she inject him with a drug that gave him Down's syndrome?"
If the answer is "No", then abortion and starting over is the only moral choice if prenatal tests indicate the child will be born with Down's syndrome."
Paul Adams is correct. Mullen's statements are logically incoherent. It is somewhat alarming that people exist who "think" in such a manner. Let's all pray for Mullen.
He may not read The Brothers Karamazov. But he does sound remarkably like a character in a Russian novel.
If the answer is 'No', then abortion and starting over is the only moral choice if prenatal tests indicate the child will be born with Down's syndrome."
Murder is never a moral choice; it is a choice that damns one to hell if he doesn't repent.
I have a developmentally disabled child. Whenever I read remarks like this, I find myself in need of repentance, not for the anger it quite appropriately generates within me, but for were that anger takes me.
God commends these children to our care and He will judge us on how we respond. May God convict you for having so hardened your heart that you believe murder is ever the answer.
I urge everyone not to think of my son in terms of his clinical condition, but to engage him as a fellow human being. Everyone who takes the time to know him comes to love his mischievous humor, loving nature, and his positive outlook. Our world (not my world, but OUR world) would be a poorer place without him.
You may have heard of this thought experiment. If you could throw your life challenges and troubles into a pile and trade them for someone else challenges, would you? I would keep my own.
For Mother's Day
When I was born and saw your face
(inside) I knew I was her to love you
For father's day:
You are a special father who in my heart
(inside) is full of memories
She has made our priest laugh by telling him
"You do a good job up there"
Recently she told me that I am a very, very, very decent guy
That was after she told my wife that she absolutely adores her husband.
She touches my soul, she makes me reflective on life and appreciative of what I have.
I feel blessed.
Every baby has the same right to life no matter what you think say or do and that means EVEN IF they have downs. You want to kill it because it makes you uneasy or because it doesn't fit your idea of "normal" or "beautiful". Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and beauty is only skin deep. Now shut up and let all kids have a chance at life. Who died and let you be the boss?
That's right. No one! Open your contracted mind or mind your own damned business. It's not up to anyone to decide who lives or dies but God. Stop acting like God and get out of the way. Sick of it. Sick of the small minds who want to control everyone and everything. Plain ol sick of it. All babies are God's handiwork and God don't make junk! God does not fail.
A fetus has no mind. It is only flesh. The mind doesn't begin to develop until after birth. Since a being is, by definition, something that has a mind, a fetus is not a human being or any other kind of being.
If a fetus is aborted, no human being is harmed because no being ever exists. But if a fetus known to be seriously defective is carried to term, it will eventually develop a mind (if it's not too defective) and that means a defective human being will be created.
So, suppose two women get pregnant. Both discover through pre-natal tests that their fetuses will have Down's syndrome. One woman carries the fetus to term, gives birth to a baby and the baby eventually becomes a human being, but one with very serious mental and physical defects.
The second woman aborts her defective fetus and gets pregnant again. This time pre-natal tests show the fetus has no defects and she carries it to term, gives birth and the baby develops into a normal human being. No defective human being ever exists in this case.
The second woman could still have the same outcome as the first woman if she injected her healthy baby with some chemical that produced Down's syndrome-like symptoms. But I trust that everybody reading this realises that would be an extremely immoral thing to do.
So why don't you consider the first woman's actions to be equally immoral? Why do you put a piece of soulless flesh above a human being?
Hugh, Roux and Phillip, you're making the best of a bad situation, but people who have access to pre-natal tests and abortion should never deliberately make a bad situation to begin with.
Tana, I think it's a WONDERFUL thing that your Downs syndrome caseload is decreasing!!
Cricket, as someone who has worn glasses since second grade, I would say that this condition is too easily fixed to be worth the pain and expense of abortion, but if my parents had discovered that I would have Down's syndrome and carried me to term, I would hope that my case would be mild enough for me to find a lawyer and sue them for negligence, as a warning to others who might do the same thing.
BYoung, do you really think that producing a terribly defective human being is "unselfish"? Would injecting a healthy baby with a poison that produces the same symptoms also be "unselfish"?
Robberson, I'll give you an operational definition of "love" as wanting the human being you produce to be as healthy as possible and "moral" as aborting a defective fetus and starting over again so that your child actually is healthy.
Michael, you seem to realize that injecting your child with a poison to produce slow learning, bad eyesight or a host of other afflictions would not be moral, but you don't seem to understand that aborting a defective fetus prevents the child you eventually have from having any of those conditions.
Nancy Roemer, if you could inject a defective baby with a chemical that would prevent Down's syndrome, you would be in a similar moral position to someone who injects cancer killing chemicals. You would be doing it to help the baby. We don't have such chemicals at this time, so aborting and starting over before a baby is produced is the only moral choice. The "ultimate good" that justifies this is producing a child that is not afflicted with a devastating disability.
Sandia, abortion prevents the defective kid from ever being produced, hence you don't have to throw it anywhere. The whole idea of aborting a defective fetus and starting over is to prevent terrible defects in children.
R J, congratulations to you and your daughter. But if, say, one out of every ten tests for Downs gives a false positive, then failure to abort (or at least test further with better tests) means that you will produce nine terribly afflicted children for every one that lucks out. Those are Russian Roulette odds.
Suann and Paul, I hope this message answers some of your questions.
I've saved a copy of this message in case it gets lost
What is human life that is unworthy of being born?
A quote from a comment above "A fetus has no mind. It is only flesh. The mind doesn't begin to develop until after birth. Since a being is, by definition, something that has a mind, a fetus is not a human being or any other kind of being."
How do we know a fetus has no mind? How do we know the mind (self consciousness perhaps???) only develops after birth?
And how do we know that the "has no mind " standard is---the standard we must use???
We need to find out where our rules & assumptions come from...!
We might be building a skyscraper high tower of faulty logic on---moral quicksand!!!
You seem to be building a small little box where (in the little world you set up) it seems "logical" to kill off the downs syndrome child...
You see "Down Syndrome child's birth" as immoral...
Such little boxes - where we can seem to "justify" a major life and death decision...of killing a child---are dangerous...
Search the Internet under the w
Let us all say a prayer for djmullen's conversion and do not provide him/her with more fuel for his/her amoral statements.
Archbishop Chaput continues to teach us all, as a true shepherd should. May god abundantly bless him.
I tell you this-
If I had my choice, I would rather have a severe case of down syndrome and be a loving, accepting person that be born without disabilities and turn out to think the way you both do.
Even though I think you have lost your mind, I will still defend your right to life.
My wife's doctor, though, put it all in perspective. She pointed out that, while the risk had approximately doubled vs when she was younger, the risk was still less than 3%--"and how often do we get 97% favorable odds in this life?!" The doctor also pointed out that the chances of birthing a child with genius IQ or heightened other capabilities was also increased for us "older" parents.
Our son is not a genius, but he is highly intelligent and possessed of broad interests and competences both intellectual and physical. He's an accomplished musician, and in this way at least, rather different from the rest of his family. Most important, he is a great blessing in our lives as are our other 7 children.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2241447.stm
http://health.discovery.com/news/healthscout/article.html?article=629039&category=22&year=2009
But even if I granted you the point - which I most certainly do not - then that would mean it's just as ok to dash a newborn against the nearest hard pointy surface should the parents decide they no longer want it...and I would hope that we can all agree that that's just not where we should be headed as a society.
And speaking of the word society...that Richard fellow should take a few lessons in civics, or perhaps re-read his New Testament (assuming he's Christian). Taking care of the weakest among us, and that includes those with disabilities, is our duty.
As a contrast, in China there are absolutely NO mentally-retarded children or adults, nor will one ever see or meet an adult with a congenital birth defect. They simply do not exist. With a bit of digging, I learned that the Government there and the State-run health, welfare, housing, et.al. systems have a quiet, but clear, coercive, and brutal eugenics policy. Given the extreme materialism, first of Communism, which has now morphed into commercialism, and destructive state-control of the individual, such a policy of "weeding-out" seems to have become a fact-of-life among the population - I should also add though that any dissenting opinions, should they exist, would find it impossible to find a public forum.
I say this not to prove a political point, but only to demonstrate to everyone that your fears about the sanctity of life in American society of the future are quite valid. There are extreme examples out there which show possibly where trends now in-play in the United States could possibly end-up.
1. If you wouldn't give your child Downs Syndrome, you have not only a right but a moral duty to kill it.
I wouldn't break my child's arm, but I'm not going to kill him if he does. I wouldn't cut my child's leg off, but I wouldn't kill him if he were, or even might be, born with one leg. The argument is simply silly.
2. Since a fetus doesn't have a mind (evidence?) it is not a human being. It can't count as a human being because it WILL at some point have a mind.
Yet he advocates aborting the fetus because it WILL (or even might) become a Down's Syndrome baby. It's the defect he obviously wants to eradicate, a defect the child won't even HAVE until after it's born. It won't do to argue that it has the genetic makeup to BECOME DS because it also has the genetic makeup to have a mind and therefore be a human being according to Mullen's own definition. So there is a fundamental contradiction there. There is, therefore, nothing in his argument that would prohibit killing DS babies who are already born. The obvious conclusion is that he wishes to eliminate the Downs Syndrome untermenschen. I'm no fan of the argumentum ad Hitlerum generally speaking, but there is something unmistakably final-solutionish about his whole argument and attitude. As I said in my previous comment, if that were symptomatic only of Mullen's logical incapacities, he could simply be dismissed. It's important because it reflects a widespread and growing development in our culture.
Along with others I certainly agree the article by Archbishop Chaput is great and his insight should be the "focus", and not the temptation to respond to/dispute djmullen (which I also did).
Having said that, I must say that the PATH of intellectual (regardless of ones IQ) "engagement" may be necessary, for some, in order for God to "touch" ones heart.
So, to djmullen, I can joyfully say: welcome to our PATH and congratulations to you for having the courage to participate in our lifelong journey into the mysteries of the Heavenly Father.
Let me ask you a few questions:
(1) How much suffering is too much suffering?
(2) How do *you* know the child would have preferred suffering rather than death? After all, if Stephan Hawkins' condition was known when it was legal to abort him, he would have said no.
(3) Is suffering the only criteria in determining life? So if you have terrible pain, can I kill you to "put you out of your misery" even if you want to live?
(4) How is having down syndrome equal to suffering? Is it because they are less intelligent? If so, you'd better be nervous if a group of people with IQs of 200 take over the world who agree with you. Or is it because they don't match your criteria for "perfection". In that case, be very nervous because if WWII has taught us anything, this should *not* be the goal of humanity.
(5) Or do you mean if other people suffer because you live, then you should die. In that case, there are some really annoying people out there that are perfectly valid to kill since they cause more anguish than many children with down syndrome.
djmullen, please read this link:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/10/001-babies-perfect-and-imperfect-23
before replying. It's about a Down Syndrome baby from the point of view of the mother. It may open your eyes.
As far as all the other comments about suffering, prenatal testing and aborting unborn children with DS.... the bottom line is: who has the right to take the life of another human being? No one.
Interesting. You hope you'd be smart enough to realize that life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Actually the smarter you get, the more that fact'll be brought home to you. It's probably the geniuses that should be suing their parents for not offing them before birth.
If it were "moral" to abort my son upon learning he had DS, would it not be equally "moral" to never try to have children given the increased odds of Type I? Certainly the odds that I would have a defective child with Type I was immorally high!
Are both of my children abort-ably defective, or just my son? What is the litmus test? My daughter takes significantly more health maintenance than my son. Is mental capacity the issue? My son is merely a year behind other children in school, and ahead of many other "normal" children. Is it that he is difficult to understand? or uniquely identifiable because of his eyes? What other appearances should we deem unacceptable? Is it the suffering we anticipate he will endure? I submit that the suffering that my son endures is when he (fortunately infrequently) is treated in an inhuman way by people who fail to respect him as a fellow human. (This treatment is very comparable the treatment minorities suffer at the hands of bigots--surly we wouldn't suggest ending this suffering via abortion!) But for this treatment, I would submit that my daughter faces a life with more suffering.
I am awed that someone would have the courage and confidence to draw a line which separates those who should be allowed to live from those who should not. Courage and confidence.....or ignorance.
There are those who say that having a child with Ds is a blessing, and I am certainly one of them. I've heard that certain cultures (Amish) pray for these children to enter their community because of this.
HOWEVER you comment above misses the point. They are gifts from God. Ony HE can decide who He will bless, because He has been preparing that soul since the beginning to be that child's parent.
DJ you are not thinking as God thinks. Just because one person has 'great damage' it doesn't mean God 'owes' the parent something. Children are all gifts from God's Hand, not things to be evaluated for worthiness and rejected at will.
You have a materialistic view of human life which stems from decades of science overstepping its boundaries, and playing God in the realm of reproduction.
"Defective" is a characterization that depends on a teleological judgment - of the purpose of the thing called defective. Something can only be "defective" for a purpose, just as something can only be "effective" for a purpose. To call a child "defective" is to say that you know what the purpose of a child is, and are able to judge whether the child is impaired in meeting that purpose.
We can speak of a person having defective speech, for instance, because we have a common understanding of the purpose of speech - to allow the speaker to communicate. A child with defective speech has speech which fails the child. The same is true of defective cognition, defective eyesight, etc. These things are less adequate for their purposes than we could wish - but those purposes are all primarily aspects of the child's good. Whether they impair the child's purpose - the "good that the child is" rather than the "good that the child has" depends on more fundamental judgments.
Frequently the expression "defective child" is used as shorthand for "child with defects" when used by Philip May, for example. I think this is a bad thing, because it makes it easy to blur a distinction important in - well, discussions like the one that's been going on in this comments thread. But I think we should consider the reasons why someone might use the phrase with its plain meaning - and mean it.
In a very non-rigorous taxonomy of beliefs regarding the purposes of human beings, I want to distinguish three broad categories - the utilitarian, that a person exists for the good of (the community, the nation, the family, the race, the species, all living things) - the autonomous, that a person exists for his/her own good - and the theological, that a person exists for God. Yes, I know those adjectives aren't in very good semantic parallel in relation to the intended idea groupings, but it's a whack.
The utilitarian thinker has a pretty easy determination - he can consider any serious defect that a person has a defect of what the person is - just as defective brakes make my car a defective car. There is then some algebra that presumably can determine whether a particular person is (net) a positive or negative thing.
Those who believe that person exists for his/her own good have a trickier calculation to perform. The heart of the issue for is - well, what's the definition of "good"? Happiness? (What's the definition of happiness?) How much is enough? What units do you measure in? Is a person with DS capable of as much happiness as someone with CP? More? Was Napoleon shorter that a pig is fat?
I suspect djmullen may fall into this category based on his/her statements about wanting to sue his/her parents if born with DS. djmullen seems to be saying that his/her purposes would be thwarted by such birth and so it could be considered actionable harm inflicted by parents. Of course, this is arrant nonsense. It is unknowable that any particular person would believe life with DS to be worse or better than having died before birth, and unknowable whether the belief was correct even if held. It is also meaningless to say "If I were not I but X, I would .." no matter what comes after the "would".
Those who believe a person exists for God's purpose can be subdivided, I suppose, by what specific purpose they think God has in mind. I fall among those who think that the purpose of a human person is to love and be loved by God. I - as many of us do - also think that we are (almost all - there are a couple of very special cases) defective for that purpose. In fact, many of those who would be considered most defective by those who prize utility or autonomy above all seem to give smaller evidence of the the defect that we rue, and we more capable and robust specimens evidence it the more.
It is our great joy that God's intentness on his purpose has provided us a correction for - a salvation from - that defect.
I believe the fundamental thing to remember is that every child, EVERY child, is created in God's image, and for His glory. Understanding this, it is clear that every human life is sacred. Further, Scripture makes clear that life does not begin at conception, it begins BEFORE conception, in the heart and the mind of God.
believes homosexuality is at least partially inherited. It turns out that my daughter's
mother in is a lesbian. If we're right a future grandchild of mine could well be gay.
I worry that at some time in the future there will be a prenatal test developed which will identify the likelihood the baby will be homosexual. For that reason, among others,
the Church needs to be very, very careful in "defending marriage." While the
higherarchy hasn't descended into overt homophobia, one need only to look at
the right wing Catholic blogosphere to see the kind of thing the fear mongering and hysteria has produced.
I guess if an article is good enough, and stays posted long enough, sooner or later someone feels the need to subvert or redirect it.
First of all, thanks for all the replies. One thing: if no one violates Godwin's Law again, I won't bring up the fact that Hitler was anti-abortion or his religion or the fact that he died in good standing with that religion or that the two top leaders of that religion signed friendship pacts with both Mussolini and Hitler. Deal?
Ok, back to the argument at hand. As I understand it, the current position of the Catholic Church is that ensoulment occurs at the moment of conception. That was also the Church's position at its beginning, but in between such Catholic luminaries as St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Thomas Aquinas and Popes Innocent III and Gregory XIV have held that ensoulment occurs after conception. They believed that ensoulment took place anywhere from 40 days after conception (Aristotle, a non-Catholic believed this for boys - 80 days for girls) to 116 days (Gregory XIV). Modern science has confirmed those views as being very conservative with ensoulment now believed to begin (it's a long process) at birth. But let's be conservative for the sake of this argument and say ensoulment occurs at 91 days, the beginning of the second trimester.
(Incidentally, I'm using "ensoulment" to mean "forming a mind" or "becoming conscious". I'm not denying the possibility of also acquiring some sort of supernatural soul along with a mind. However, since over one half of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortions (commonly called miscarriages), I feel that any God who is worthy of being called "good" has found some way of taking care of any supernatural souls lost before birth and I will concentrate on the mind here. I don't think He has to do anything about minds lost before birth because I don't think they exist.)
If ensoulment takes place at conception, then the Catholic doctrine is sound and I have no problems with archbishop Chaput's posting. But if it doesn't and you discover the fetus is defective before ensoulment and allow it to be born anyway, then you are (inadvertently in most cases) committing a grave sin, that of unnecessarily creating a defective human being. As I said before, it's like having a healthy baby and injecting it with poison.
Unfortunately, besides being charged with emotion, there are several logical traps and short circuits hiding in the abortion question. The biggest trap is at the heart of this frequent challenge: "How would you like it if your mother aborted YOU!?" Well, if my mother had aborted the fetus that later became me, I would never have existed to care about it. In a similar vein, Ronald Devins asks, "How do 'you' know the child would have preferred suffering rather than death?" Because the "child", meaning his mind, never existed to care either way.
Look at it this way: it is impossible for what has never existed to care about anything for there is nothing there TO care. Most of you have several non-existent brothers and sisters. These are siblings that were never conceived because for some reason or other your parents didn't happen to have sex at one of the times when your mother was fertile or they did and fertilization didn't occur or they did and it worked, but the egg self-aborted long before birth. Do these non-existent brothers and sisters regret this? Are they crying because they never came into existence? Certainly not, for there is now and never has been anything there to cry. Is their non-existence immoral? Of course not unless not having sex has somehow become immoral.
Another logical short-circuit is confusing "human life" with "human being". Your thumb is human and it is thus "human life". So is the little toe on your left foot, the hangnail on your right index finger and the wart on your arm. They are all alive and they are all derived from a member of the human species, so they are all examples of "human life". But they are not "human beings". A "being" is something that can think. You're a being, I'm a being, Jesus was a being and so is anything else that can think. If the fictional ET and C3PO really existed, they would be beings because they can both think, although they would not be human beings because they don't belong to the human species.
A fertilized egg or a first trimester fetus are examples of "human life", but neither is a "human being" because they cannot think. They aren't conscious and they never have been conscious. If they never become conscious, they are in the same boat as your non-existent brothers and sisters.
Let me answer a few specific posts here: Phillip May asks, "If it were 'moral' to abort my son upon learning he had DS, would it not be equally 'moral' to never try to have children given the increased odds of Type I [diabetes]?"
First, if your son has been born and started to acquire consciousness, then it is not moral to kill him. He's transitioned from human life to a human being. If he hasn't been born yet, and you learn that he will probably have any serious condition, such as DS or type I diabetes, then yes, abortion is not only moral, but not having an abortion is positively immoral. Deliberately or carelessly giving birth to a seriously defective offspring is as immoral as injecting a healthy child with a poison that produces that condition.
As for a mere risk of a really bad condition, what is the condition and what is the risk? For something really bad, I would prefer to not have children. I could never forgive myself if we lost that particular lottery.
"I am awed that someone would have the courage and confidence to draw a line which separates those who should be allowed to live from those who should not."
The question got a lot simpler in the late 50's and early 60's when accurate knowledge of fetal development became widely disseminated. That knowledge eventually reached even Supreme Court justices and culminated in Roe v Wade in 1973.
Fred claims I meant, "If you wouldn't give your child Downs Syndrome, you have not only a right but a moral duty to kill it." Fred, if you have a "child", you have a human being and it has the same right to life that you do. I'm talking about an unensouled fetus.
"Yet he advocatres aborting the fetus because it WILL (or even might) become a Downs Syndrome baby. It's the defect he obviously wants to eradicate, a defect the child won't even HAVE until after it's born."
You're right that it's the defect that I want to eradicate, but nobody knows how to do that while preserving the fetus as of yet. A question for you: If we someday develop a pill or some sort of micro-machine or whatever that can remove a defective gene from a fertilized egg and substitute a good one, would you allow that? I would.
As for the fetus not having the defect yet, would you consider it moral to plant a time bomb in the fetus, one that would go off and kill or maim the fetus at birth or later? Because if you allow an unensouled fetus with an extra chromosome to be born, that's what you're doing. I advocate stopping the pregnancy and starting over while the fetus is still unensouled flesh and before it becomes a human being.
"It won't do to argue that it has the genetic makeup to BECOME DS because it also has the genetic makeup to have a mind and therefore be a human being according to Mullen's own definition. So there is a fundamental contradiction there."
It has the genetic makeup to have a mind AND to have that mind and body deformed by DS. The humane thing to do is stop the pregnancy before that mind develops and start over. Gentic makeup has no intrinsic worth, only the human beings that are produced by those genes does.
"There is, therefore, nothing in his argument that would prohibit killing DS babies who are already born."
Nothing except that mind, that is. The whole idea is that mind=being=fully protected. No mind=flesh only=not protected if you know it's going to turn out badly.
I think that's about enough for tonight. I look forwards to reading all of your responses.
I have read your four letters and I understand that you don't like what I've written. Nevertheless, I stand by my words.
Please be more specific about the areas where you disagree. For instance, I've claimed that ensoulment occurs after fertilization. If you disagree, please tell us when you think it occurs. In fact, please tell us anything factual that bears on abortion.
Dave
I was interested by this comment of yours:
"First of all, thanks for all the replies. One thing: if no one violates Godwin's Law again, I won't bring
up the fact that Hitler was anti-abortion or his religion or the fact that he died in good standing with
that religion or that the two top leaders of that religion signed friendship pacts with both Mussolini
and Hitler. Deal?"
Please provide proof for those statements. The Holy Church signs "concordats" with many countries
and they are not "friendship pacts", they are agreements about the status of the Church in connection
with the State. Hardly, "friendship pacts", the Church also has and or had "condordats" with France, Spain, etc. Hitler died in good standing with the Catholic Church? Haha, you would be quite
amusing if you weren't spouting typical anti-Catholic drivel. A simple review of his actions and his
words and the actions of Catholic leaders in Germany would show the falsehood of your statements.
As far as your comments regarding "ensoulment", abortion, etc, there is as much need to pay
attention to that as there is to pay attention to a little child when they say they saw the Easter Bunny
or the tooth fairy. All you do is pat them on the head and tell them to go away and play with their
toys.
I would love to hear anyone's thoughts.
Best!
You claim that those with learning "disabilities" do not have a right to life and say that "if my parents had discovered that I would have Down's syndrome and carried me to term, I would hope that my case would be mild enough for me to find a lawyer and sue them for negligence, as a warning to others who might do the same thing."
As I receive straight As (at a school known for challenging academics, in AP level-classes) when I bother to do the homework and turn it in, it would be safe to assume I am capable of rational thought. I say, if my parents learned that I would have autism while I was still a fetus (let's make this easy, and say an unensouled fetus) and they used some drug to "cure" me, I would hope that it left enough of my mental capabilities to sue my parents for whatever I could. My literal viewpoint allows me to immediately grasp advanced Calculus concepts that your "normal" people (also known as most of my classmates, many of whom have extremelly high IQs) take hours of questions before they understand the relationship between a derivative and the original function.
Shame on you. You obviously have never had a significant conversation with a "disabled person."
It's a refrain these days, "Penny, I am proud of you." I say it when she walks out of school with her thumbs up, an indication that she has made "good choices" today (this after a few days of bad choices, which included yellow paint smeared across her new white shirt, in her hair, on her cheeks...). Or after she tells me she needs to "tinkle on the potty." Or, after she says, "Mom, I will write my name," and sits down to work on those five letters. Or when she hears William crying and walks over to give him a hug. I am proud of her.
A few years back, I was afraid that I wouldn't be proud of Penny. When people saw her, I often felt my eyes darting back and forth as I assessed their impressions. I heard the worried voice inside my head: Is her tongue hanging out of her mouth? Do they think she looks cute? Do they know she has Down syndrome? These days, when strangers meet Penny, I am eager to tell them that she has Down syndrome. I want them to know that she has an extra chromosome. I am proud of every part of her, including, perhaps especially, that part of her that is different from the norm.
Recently, though, I've had to ask the question. Am I proud of her because of who she is or because of what she can accomplish? She's a remarkable little girl, with remarkable "skills" in the lingo of assessments and measurements. She can write her name. She can sing songs. She can follow directions. Are these the things that make me proud?
This summer, I frequented a supermarket where a man with Down syndrome bagged groceries. We didn't ever talk much, but he did his job with care. His movements were deliberate. After years of watching Penny in Occupational Therapy (which works on fine motor skills), I know how much effort it takes to open the bag and place the items inside in an orderly way. I know that coordination and strength are harder to come by for someone with an extra 21st chromosome. I have no idea what this young man could accomplish on a cognitive exam, but I felt that same surge of pride every time I paid for my bananas and he put them in a grocery bag. I was proud of him, and I was grateful to have a daughter who is like him in many ways--kind, hard-working, patient.
Then, this past week, I met three teenagers with Down syndrome. It was hard to understand their words much of the time, though they didn't speak much. They did make noises, and they didn't always look me in the eye when I spoke. It was easy to try to assess them. And by many measuring rods, they would have been found wanting. If I had only been able to see them for a few minutes, I might have felt sad about their lives. I might have thought they were a disappointment to their parents.
But as the night went on, I got to see more and more of their character. Each of them had a gentleness to them, a quiet strength and maturity, even. After a few hours together, there was Sam, walking past, stopping to plant a gentle kiss on my head. And there was Maggie, sitting on the floor next to William. Let me pause for a moment to explain William's temperament. He is intense. Very intense. All the time. This kid doesn't know any speed other than stop (i.e. sleep) or go (i.e. run and climb and get five stitches and run some more). But there he was, lying on his back, with a big smile, gazing into Maggie's eyes. She wasn't really playing with him, just attending to him, caring for him. It was something about her presence that slowed him down, calmed him down, gave him peace that I rarely see.
By the end of the night, I was proud of those three teenagers. And proud that my daughter is one of them.




It's good that he's getting some small compensation for the great damage done to him, both bodily and mentally.
But the key question is: "If your friend had a normal baby, would she inject him with a drug that gave him Down's syndrome?"
If the answer is "No", then abortion and starting over is the only moral choice if prenatal tests indicate the child will be born with Down's syndrome.