Home > Perspective

The Insanity of the Hypocrisy Allegations

by Conservativity Staff,
Originally Posted: 9/5/2008 1:27:32 PM

As I have reported, the media are in a panic over John McCain’s (or as Rush now refers to the man, "John McBrilliant") choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate.  They now seek whatever thin threads they can find to attempt to blunt the ecstatic jubilation in the GOP, which has resulted in a McBrilliant-Obama tie as of this writing.  And, the trend favors McCain/Palin!  As the panic increases, so will the desperation of the media’s attacks.  Today, I have read a truly sickening piece in Salon.  In this evil smear job, Rahul Parihk, a medical doctor supposedly sworn to "do no harm" to his patients, brands Governor Palin a hypocrite for carrying her son, Trig to term, knowing that he suffered from Down’s Syndrome.

Apparently because Mrs. Palin believes in the preciousness of life, and that the law should protect the innocents over the convenience of those who cannot be bothered with the responsibility of a new life, she is, in "doctor" Parhik’s eyes, a hypocrite for practicing what she preaches!  As the "doctor" points out, when people find out their unborn person has Down’s, 90 percent of the time, they kill the baby.  Governor Palin asks the question: "Why?  What did the baby do?"  Given the exact challenge in her own life, the governor responded by acting according to her convictions.  How is this hypocritical?  How is this wrong?

Have you ever met a person with Down’s Syndrome?  Yes, they are developmentally delayed.  Yes, they look different.  So what.  People with Down’s Syndrome, as a rule, are also very kind, lacking violent temper and very difficult to anger.  They are generally happy most of the time.  So why kill these kind, happy people?  Because they don’t measure up to our "beautiful person" standards?  If not, then are you murdering the little babies because they will be more work to raise?  Either choice is consummately selfish and amoral to its core.  Governor Palin is selfless, and as a result, little Trig is not a pile of decaying "biological waste" that was incinerated.  Thank God that this woman lives what she speaks!

This doctor writes:

"Rabid anti-choice activists have called that trend eugenics via medicine. But try telling that to a mother who is told early on in her pregnancy that she will be raising a child who will have a host of medical and developmental problems, requiring intense medical and social attention for the rest of his or her life. It can be tragic and nearly impossible news to bear."

Why is it tragic?  Why it is impossible?  It may be inconvenient, or embarrassing to those who think that genetics reflects personally upon them.  But since when do inconvenience or wounded pride justify the killing of a person? 

The "doctor" also mentions money, implying that some parents cannot afford to raise a Down’s child.  Why?  The government forks over boatloads of money to educate special needs children, via the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).  All disabled people qualify for Social Security and Medicare from birth.

The apparent hypocrisy came from the fact that the governor had a test that revealed Down’s in the first place. The "doctor" therefore deduced that Governor Palin had a choice that she wants to deny to other women.  There are two problems with this logic.  First, Is this test not a part of a normal panel of tests given to over-40 women who are pregnant?  Is the sole purpose of this test to determine if the baby is genetically "abnormal" or does it detect other things?  I ask because I do not know.  I am not a reporter, only a commentator, but my guess is that this test is used for more than advice as to whether or not to kill your baby.  Second, the "doctor" assumes that Governor had to look at the situation and then decide whether her convenience outweighed her convictions.  Perhaps Governor Palin is one of those people whose faith drives her convictions and her behavior, resulting in integrity.  Considering the whole of what I know of her and her family, I believe the latter is the case.

As to the criticism of we who believe that babies are people, that in our "rabid anti-choice" activism, we call this practice "eugenics via medicine,"  the test itself is revealing.  If the test detects only genetic anomalies and has no other use than identifying Downs or other genetic issues, then the test is there as a means to facilitate a decision to kill the baby.  Killing a baby because it does not measure up to some standard is, simply put, eugenics.  If the medical profession has developed, and proffers, a test to help parents kill their babies, then said test is eugenics via medicine.

I could go on to note that this "doctor" defended the whacked-out tinfoil-hat types at Daily Kos who alleged that Trig was Bristol Palin’s child, and that sarah was passing off her gransdon as her son.  While saying that he did not believe the story, why mention it except to fan the flames of agitation?  Not worth our time.