Well lookie here apparently conservatives are none too happy with the fact that a young girl with cystic fibrosis received lungs and is now not going to drown in her own saliva. Fancy that. These same people rail against the fact that her parents went to court to over turn an outdated regulation that the government had no problem leaving in place. A regulation that would have taken over two years to review. It seems that according to these self-important individuals parents of children with disabilities are supposed to let their children die for the good of society so “more deserving” people receive transplants. Of course an interesting aside of this argument, or rather the immature aside, is when those that disagree with the self-righteous holier-than-thou conservatives of the transplant coin (me for instance) are called ignorant, asinine and told to go to hell. I guess people get a little testy when called out for channeling their inner Josef Mengele. (Read HERE my discussion of an argument I had with a blogger who writes for a well know conservative magazine. To put it mildly, she did not take kindly to me not agreeing with her position.)
The self-same anti-Obamacare adherents, who think that the government has no right to control your life, resent that the girl’s parents went outside the normal regulations and asked a judge to disqualify the offending reg. which would have led to her death. Funny how those people who rail against government intrusion into the lives of people, “death panels” and Obamacare, also think that no one has a right to go against the grain to get rid of offending laws or regulations. Or more to the point, perhaps they think only those who are considered able-bodied both physically and mentally are allowed to pursue life. Hence those who do not have what they consider to be an appropriate, accepted “normal” future or “neurotypical” synapses have no right to life and should just do the world a favor and not exist at all.
Of course a woman could just have had an abortion if the baby has a known disability but those on the right fight virulently against abortion. Perhaps according to the self-righteous-right these untermenchen should be allowed to be born but then not be given life saving surgeries, healthcare, support and above all respect by humanity as a whole?
While the feminist movement still carries “the cross” that it’s a woman’s body and her uterus alone that is important in the abortion decision, (something wholly disproved by modern science as babies are shown to feel pain by the 5th month of gestation) a side effect of abortion has been the dwindling of the visibly disabled population in areas with first-world-medical care. It is well documented that over 98% of all babies diagnosed with down syndrome are aborted.
Meanwhile, at present there is no genetic test for invisible disabilities such as autism, but it is in the works. Which of course brings up so many new issues as well, such as: do you really trust the psychiatric profession to make lifelong predictions about your child’s future based solely upon what they deem to be the reality for persons with disabilities, or do you fight the good fight to make sure your child has the life they are entitled to have? Hence the humanizing nonscientific concept of “different not less.”
Interestingly enough, the idea of human value now turns to nations like India and China where there is a disproportionate male to female ratio because of sex selective abortions, now termed gendercide. Society has in general degenerated from deeming those with mental and physical challenges “untermenchen” to considering “females” less worthy of life. Of course the societal degradation of girls is nothing new in those Asian and subAsian cultures, except that there is now a modern way to show societal disdain for females by making sure that there are in general just less of them.
Furthermore, an outgrowth of the untermenchen movement from abortion is that in the United States and western Europe parents who kill their autistic children are considered victims not murderers as they should be. In fact it is a familiar defense used by every parent charged with the murder of their autistic child to show how less worthy that child was of life; how they are too costly for society; and that in effect the woman who murdered her child was “made to kill” her child because autism is such a debilitating disease. In other words, the child’s autism was not about the child but about the defendant.
Funny how things work out, isn’t it? Here the pro-abortion advocates and the “angry at the advocating parents” agree. Those with disabilities have no right to life. That modern medical technology should not be used to save them. That those with disabilities are less worthy of life and of any future. But not to worry. Soon we may all be able to embody this concept of untermenchen into law just like it once was under Hitler’s Germany.
Apparently in Belgium and the Netherlands there is a proposed law that would allow parents to kill their children if the parent is in distress and upset about what the child is going through. Those defending the infanticidal parents of autistic children should pay close attention here, since this law makes it legal to kill a child if the third-party parent is under distress from the child’s disease or disability.
This proposed law is merely an expanded version of the euthanasia law that already exists in these western European nations. A slippery slope as it were, yet not any different from the deathlists found in the UK. However, even without the “new” definition of distress, life and happiness, embodied in this law, it has been documented that in the Netherlands 22 babies born alive with spina bifida have been murdered at the request of their parents. Josef Mengele would be so proud. Read HERE