[September 16, 2008]

By Nicholas Provenzo

Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin's decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality and moral right of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.

For some, it is quite hard to take on the commitment of raising a child. A woman could become pregnant under less than ideal circumstances such as rape, incest, or poverty. Potential parents could be poorly suited to the task of parenting; they might not have the maturity to raise their would-be children. A woman's pregnancy could go horribly wrong; for example, in my own life, I know a woman who became pregnant with a severely deformed fetus due to her exposure to hazardous materials. I also know several women who have became pregnant with fetuses afflicted with Down syndrome likely caused by the fact that the circumstances of their their lives compelled these women to postpone motherhood until later in their lives (as is their right).

Each of these women are currently free to make their own evaluations about what their lives can handle and the morality of bringing their pregnancies to term. I say if they are acting in their rational self-interest when they make their choice (and acting in this way is much harder than some people believe), I say their choice is moral, whatever it may be.

Let us not forget, a parent has a obligation to provide for his or her children until these children are equipped to provide for themselves. In the case of a person afflicted with Down syndrome, who is often only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and who often 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 who have no choice in the matter. I disagree with this. We are each individually responsible for the choices we make, including the choice to have children. We should not expect or demand that others involuntarily carry our load.

So while anti-abortion commentators such as Michael Franc of the National Review sees Down syndrome's victims as "ambassadors of God" who "offer us the opportunity to rise to that greatest of all challenges," for many, that opportunity for challenge is little more than a lifetime of endless burden. In this light, it is completely legitimate for a woman to look at the circumstances of her life and decide that giving birth to a child with Down syndrome (or any child for that matter) is not an obligation that she can accept. 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. A woman should be free to make that choice in accordance with her her own life, judgment and values.

The fact of the matter is that most parents seek to create healthy life; in the case of the unborn fetuses shown to have severe developmental disabilities, one study reports that over 90% of these fetuses are aborted prior to birth. But if you notice, the anti-abortion zealots try to attach a dirty little slur to these abortions, labeling them a form of eugenics; that is, form of coerced racial and physical purity.

For example, in 2005, as he condemned those who opposed federal legislation that would have attempted to dissuade women carrying fetuses diagnosed with severe disabilities from having abortions, conservative pundit George Will wrote:

If it is not unobjectionable, let's identify the objectors, who probably favor the pernicious quest -- today's "respectable" eugenics -- for a disability-free society.

So in the anti-abortion advocate's eyes, a parent's desire to raise healthy children by squelching unhealthy fetuses while the are still in the womb is little more than a pernicious quest, but it is not considered a pernicious quest to knowingly bring severely disabled children into this world just for the sake of doing so and just as the "Pro-Life" advocates wish. On the contrary, such a choice is held out as an great example of upstanding morality. For example, consider this recent press release from a conservative anti-abortion advocacy group which celebrated Plain's birth announcement:

The Palin family is a wonderful example of a family who made the right choice to embrace their child and his future. Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), commends Governor Palin, saying, "She is even more beautiful inside than out. Her proud and warm announcement of the birth of their special child revealed the depth of love and faith of this extraordinary woman. May God give America more women and statesmen like her.

"Special needs children can bring out the best in people. They draw out compassion, patience, a joy for the simple things in life in people around them," says Wright. "In some ways, we need special needs people more than they need us."

That is, we need the mentally retarded to teach us how to better sacrifice our lives and divest ourselves of our self-interested ways more than they need us to care for them. A colleague of mine, Diana Hsieh condemns such a stand as "the worship of retardation." Given that Sarah Palin had complete foreknowledge of her child's severe disability yet nevertheless chose to have it and because she would deny other women the right to choose any differently, it is hard not to see her choice as anything less.