Does the child have a choice?

Maria Eftimiades, a reporter for People Magazine, wrote in Tuesday's Washington Post about her very personal story of ending her pregnancy after a Down Syndrome diagnosis.

I have never needed to face such difficult circumstances, as God blessed us with two healthy girls. Because of that and what I write here, I'm sure I'll be blasted for my insensitivity, my holier-than-thou attitude, my inability to empathize with a difficult decision that has no easy answers.

I plead guilty to a lack of empathy, and I've certainly had my share of insensitivity. If I come across as arrogant, I apologize. I'm not sorry for having convictions about the value of human life. However difficult Ms. Eftimiades' decision may have been, there were a few things that bothered me. She wrote:

While I have no doubt there can be joys and victories in raising a mentally handicapped child, for me and for Mike, it's a painful journey that we believe is better not taken. To know now that our son would be retarded, perhaps profoundly, gives us the choice of not continuing the pregnancy. We don't want a life like that for our child, and the added worry that we wouldn't be around long enough to care for him throughout his life.

. . . I'm quite certain that I made the right choice for the three of us.

"A painful journey that we believe is better not taken." Better for whom? For the baby? The writer tries to suggest that it's best for the child as well, though she admits that "we don't want a life like that for our child." So it's really "the right choice" for the adults, and the child (which they named John) must bear the brunt of the decision.

I'm also bothered by the fact that this couple was trying to conceive. They were both over 40; they knew the risks. Instead, they were unwilling to accept the cards dealt to them. Like playing blackjack without any face cards, they knew the odds were not very high, but they hoped they could pick up a pair of nines and beat the dealer. When they got a pair of deuces, they folded without seeing what came next off the deck.

She continues:

I'm sure pro-lifers don't give you the right to grieve for the baby you chose not to bring into the world (another euphemism, although avoiding the word "abortion'' doesn't take any sting out of the decision to have one). Only now do I understand how entirely personal the decision to terminate a pregnancy is and how wrong it feels to bring someone else's morality into the discussion.

My responses:
1) Her blanket condemnation of "pro-lifers (who) don't give you the right to grieve" is as misguided and incorrect as me saying that all pro-abortion advocates are radicals who would have no qualms about aborting their baby by cutting off its head two hours before delivery.

In Portland, the local Pregnancy Resource Centers established the HEART program to minister to women struggling with abortions. HEART (an acronym for Healing Encouragement for Abortion-Related Trauma) is "designed to educate and support post-abortive men and women to aid in them in healing from the grief of abortion," according to its website. Another site, Hope After Abortion, states on its home page that "It's normal to grieve a pregnancy loss, including the loss of a child by abortion. It can form a hole in one's heart, a hole so deep that sometimes it seems nothing can fill the emptiness."

Both programs are operated by faith-based organizations, and it would be completely deceptive to claim either forbids the "right" to grieve an aborted child.

2) She writes: "Only now do I understand how entirely personal the decision to terminate a pregnancy is and how wrong it feels to bring someone else's morality into the discussion."

This is a classic ploy to end debate by accusing pro-lifers of shoving their morality down others' throats. The answer is really quite simple, and is summed up by the folks at Stand to Reason:

Abortion involves killing and discarding something that's alive. Whether it's right or not to take the life of any living being depends entirely upon the answer to one question: What kind of being is it? The answer one gives is pivotal, the deciding element that trumps all other considerations.

Let me put the issue plainly. If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate.

3) Ms. Eftimiades attempts (perhaps inadvertently) to make all abortion discussion off-limits with her difficult story, as if suggesting that any abortion must be available because of cases like birth defect or rape. In truth, 95 percent of all abortions are performed as a means of birth control or to end an unplanned pregnancy. Only 1 percent of abortions are performed because of rape or incest, and 3 percent are because of fetal abnormalities.

In addition, those who choose not to end a birth-defected pregnancy have other options. Go to the National Down Syndrome Society website, type "adopt" into the search box, and you'll see stories about parents willing to adopt babies with the defect.

Those parents willing to accept the cards they receive find unexpected joys. A reader of The Corner at National Review Online, a parent of a Down Syndrome child, made this point elegantly:

I am sure that many read Maria Eftimiades article and sympathized with her situation and decision. I do too, but for a different reason than most.

This article is the story of two victims. First, John, a human being that has not been allowed to reach his potential. Second, Maria, a human being that has been victimized by a culture that values choice above life, especially a life that is not considered perfect.

It is clear by the guilt in Maria's own words that she is a victim. Let me give you a few examples:

1. Considering miscarriage as a way to hide her decision.
2. Referring to people as "funny" who might question her decision.
3. Her "knowing" that John is "retarded, perhaps profoundly" and referring to Down Syndrome as a severe disability" when she could not possibly know John's future potential.
4. Determining that raising a child with a disability is a "painful journey."
5. Her missing of John.
6. Her "luck" that no one at the hospital knew what she was doing.
7. Her choice to write a letter to a sympathetic editorial page.

One of the storylines last week on Nip/Tuck involved a young man that wanted to change his appearance so that he looked more like his family. The actor played his part with skill, vigor and professionalism. This young man happened to have Down Syndrome.

As a parent of a child with Down Syndrome I am often complimented for doing my job as a parent. This is because our culture assumes, like Maria, that it is a painful journey. This conclusion, like so many other things accepted by our culture is dead wrong.

I believe that raising a child with a disability is very similar to raising any child, only the highs are higher and the lows are lower. There are few greater joys in life than watching your disabled child accomplish things no one expected. There are few greater sadnesses than dealing with health issues that are often associated with a disabled child. But aren't the highs and lows, the intense emotional experiences what makes life worth living? Unfortunately for Maria she will never know how John would have enriched her life.

As I watched the news last night I learned that the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear may come off the endangered species list and listened to the outrage from people afraid that we may lose this species. In todays America, we are aborting most fetuses with Down Syndrome. We are effectively eliminating human beings with Down Syndrome from our population. Where is the outrage?

Indeed.