It Is Not ‘Humane’ For The Atlantic To Sympathize With Killing Babies With Down Syndrome, Like My Little Sister By Evita Duffy for The Federalist
GNN Note – As we continuously note – if we were discussing baby elephants, dogs, cats, snails or some other creature that wasn’t a human the leftist would be up in arms. /END
Atlantic author Sarah Zhang uses a rhetorical trick to create sympathy and understanding for eugenics and a modern-day genocide.
Recently, The Atlantic published an article, “The Last Children of Down Syndrome,” by Sarah Zhang, in which she explores the effects of prenatal testing in Demark. Denmark is among many Nordic countries that provide taxpayer-paid prenatal testing for Down Syndrome and other genetic anomalies. In Denmark, more than 95 percent of those who receive a DS diagnosis choose to abort their child. In 2019, only 18 children with Down Syndrome were born in the entire country.
Now is your chance to support Gospel News Network.
We love helping others and believe that’s one of the reasons we are chosen as Ambassadors of the Kingdom, to serve God’s children. We look to the Greatest Commandment as our Powering force.
While Zhang claims to present readers what she calls an “emotional ground truth” by giving pros and cons to the DS abortion debate and “humanizing” all choices, her real underlying goals are clear: to give her readers the justification for modern-day eugenics and to dismantle society’s natural aversion to selective breeding.
Zhang provides interviews from parents who chose life and those who chose to abort their child pre-natally diagnosed with DS. She also discusses the history of eugenics. Zhang correctly points out that many people are uncomfortable admitting that they support or have had an abortion because of a disability, especially since Europeans are sensitive to the history of extermination and forced sterilizations for the “feeble minded” in Nazi Germany. To her credit, Zhang interviews bioethicists David Wasserman and Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, who explain the moral dilemma that technological and scientific advancements present medical professionals as more genetic abnormalities are identified.
However, her article is also filled with sympathetic testimonies from those who validate their decision or their support for abortion as a means of eliminating the hardships and sacrifices that come with caring for a child with special needs. For example, one woman complained that her child with DS is frustrated with his communication limitations and resorts to biting and fighting with his siblings. The mother, who says she “loves her son,” nonetheless admits, “We would have asked for an abortion if we knew.”
Interestingly, Zhang points out the internal hypocrisy felt by many of the mothers who chose abortion, specifically northern Europeans who fancy themselves progressive and “tolerant.” Lou, one of the mothers she interviewed, confesses, “I think it’s because we as a society like to think of ourselves as inclusive. We are a rich society, and we think it’s important that different types of people should be here.”
Zhang explains: “Their own self-understanding is a little shaken, because they have to accept they aren’t the kind of person like they thought.” In essence, many of the parents who chose abortion experience profound guilt for their decision because it conflicts with the “inclusive” value system progressive societies, such as Denmark, like to think they have.
