Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A writer for a libertarian group has written perhaps the most scathing attack on pro-life vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin since the Alaska governor was announced weeks ago as John McCain's running mate. Nicholas Provenzo condemns Palin for the birth of her baby Trig, who has Down syndrome.
Provenzo, who writes for the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism, not only bashes her for allowing Trig to be born, but says she should have made the so-called morally justifiable decision to kill him in an abortion.
The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism bills itself as a group "dedicated to advancing individual rights and economic freedom through Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism."
Individual rights? The person in the womb is also an individual yet the pro-death, pro-eugenics mentality persists...some have learned absolutely nothing from history or the moral law.
While as many as 80-90 percent of unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome become victims of abortion, Palin didn't let her child become a statistic. Palin, who has deeply-felt pro-life views, gave birth to her fifth child in April and the baby was diagnosed with the condition.
From what planet do you hail, Paul?
ReplyDeleteYou erroneously claim that it is wrong to "uphold the 10% women who choose to have the DS child as automatically morally superior to the 90% who choose to abort."
You state that the killing of a defenseless child in the womb is a morally right choice. Why stop with Down's Syndrome babies? Why stop with the unborn? Is it a morally right choice to murder another person because of some other criterion?
If I believe that people who "choose" to murder babies, whether born or unborn, should not be permitted to live because it diminishes my happiness, am I free to kill them despite how difficult that decision might be?
If a person suffers an accident which severely impairs his mental or physical capacity, should society or his family then terminate his life so that they will not be burdened by having to care for him?
What you and Provenzo propose is both illogical and grossly immoral. Abortion is not a "right" but a plague - a disease which is destroying our nation. Those who support this blatant immorality and gross injustice are, in essence, no different than history's other murdering, genocidal tyrants.
You should do yourself a favor and reflect on what your position truly means and determine just where you would draw the line that determines who lives and who dies. Your friends and your enemies may "choose" to draw that line differently that you. It's possible that you might find yourself at the mercy of another who decides who lives and who dies - based, not on the dignity of the human person and a person's right to life, but on arbitrary criteria (race, ethnicity, intelligence, etc).
I truly feel sorry for people like you. Were we living in the 18th and 19th century, I can see you and your friends using similar arguments to defend slavery.