Nicholas Provenzo writes at World of Reason:
"A parent has a moral obligation to provide for his or her children until these children are equipped to provide for themselves. Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision, unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child's life upon others."

I have known quite a few parents of "special needs" children, NONE of them wealthy by any objective standard, and I have yet to see any of them taking any undue assistance to help care for those children.

I am glad to see this type of blather out in the open however, as it does raise some good points of discussion...by following Mr. Provenzo's standards, taken to their logical conclusions; we should do away with all social aid, because, after all; those with mental disabilities, or on welfare,Medicaid for poor children,Social Security, SS Disability ( YIKES, THAT includes ME!!), or on any number of other programs are "undue burdens on the social body" and ergo should be (at least in the case of the unborn) aborted. I suppose I should look for the nearest euthanasia center and turn myself in? And of course, since in Mr. Provenzo's view, I made a "profoundly selfish choice" by having children, and since I'll no longer be around to care for them (having done the socially responsible thing and terminating myself); they'll need to be given the old heave-ho too, all in the interest of the avoiding any needless cost to society, of course.

"After all, the choice to have a child is a profoundly selfish choice; that is, a choice that is an expression of the parent's personal desire to create new life."

Too bad Mr. Provenzo's mother was so damned selfish, or we wouldn't have to try to comprehend such idiocy as he spouts.

I consider myself a small "l" Libertarian with Fiscal Conservative leanings; I do NOT believe in unlimited welfare just because a certain segment of the population at large is too damned lazy to get off their collectivist asses and provide for themselves, but I do believe that there is a certain social responsibility for the less fortunate, I just believe that it should be the provenance of mostly private charities and religious groups, with very little done by Government. For purposes of full disclosure, I myself depend on the largess of the Public Teat in the form of SSD...and I admit it is somewhat hypocritical of me to accept such aid and rail against the unfairness of it at the same time, and I accept that accusation of that hypocrisy as being all too true.
At the same time, the state of my physical condition precludes me from doing anything else. Should the Government aid end tomorrow; it would be a disaster for me personally, yet I would still hail it as a step forward for the Country at large.

Mr. Provenzo cares not one whit for the public good, he is only concerned with sustaining the selfishness of the pro-abortion crowd. Make no mistake, it is NOT 'pro-choice' - it's 'pro-abortion', as is more than proven by Mr. Provenzo's linking of the termination of Downs Syndrome babies to abortion of any fetus in general, at the whim of the mother.

It's interesting that the pro-abortion crowd is constantly claiming that social conservatives are always trying to 'force their morality' on them, yet it seems that they are in fact the ones trying to force their 'morality' on the body politic.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 10:21 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 623 words, total size 4 kb.

Seems that the U.S. isn't the only place with it's share of moon-bats, in this story out of Surrey, the U.K., a soldier was refused service in a hotel simply because he was a soldier.

Corporal Tomos Stringer, wounded in a convoy ambush in Afghanistan, was in Surrey to participate in a fallen comrade's' funeral when he was refused a room on the basis of his being a member of the Armed Services at the Metro Hotel in Woking, Surrey.

Guess Kipling was right when he wrote :

"For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!"

Hope all the Brit Vets and Active Duty don't let this pass without comment; I also hope it to be a given that we here are grateful for the service of ALL the troops engaged in the WoT, no matter what their country of origin. People like Cpl. Stringer are much better than some of the people they defend deserve.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 06:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.