|
It’s a new month and my column has a new title. There have been some changes made to the
columns over the past month, and one change is my take on the various Usenet newsgroups.
Instead of merely writing pure commentary on various topics from the newsgroups, I am now
incorporating comments from some of the discussions themselves.
If you listen to the infinite wisdom of the French courts, people inherently have certain
rights – far exceeding any of the rights considered inalienable under the United States’
Constitution or Bill of Rights
Times changes and laws evolve for the better. Supposedly. If you look to France for the
ultimate legal guidance and judicial wisdom, you may notice a few blocked synaptic gaps.
If you do, and if you are not a French citizen, count yourself among the fortunate. On the
other hand, if you are a French citizen, Lord help you, as the courts are bound to bring
you under very odd laws over the coming years. Vive la France!
Not sure just what I’m talking about? Well, it’s really simple, I suppose, as long as you
are simple-minded. You see, France’s highest appeal court ruled in July that handicapped
children have a right to not have been born. In deciding the case, the judges upheld an
earlier case that children who are born with a grave disability have a right to sue
doctors who failed to diagnose their handicap in utero. Yes, that’s right. Doctors
are now supposed to be deity-like folks with all the answers of man, time, and space,
knowing all, seeing all, healing all, and aborting any
“less-than-perfect-and-potentially-less-than-perfect people-prior-to-birth."
I don’t follow the reasoning. Let’s look at some of the issues, and yes, we are going to
touch on abortion, folks. In order for a person to have rights, any right, they must,
obviously, be a person. Right? Well, if you listen to abortion advocates tell it, a
developing fetus isn’t a person because the fetus could not survive outside the uterus. If
that’s the case, then the entire court case it tossed out the door on its ear because you
have no victim. On the other hand, if you listen to pro-life advocates tell it, a fetus is
a person from conception. If that’s the case, then sure, you could abort. But to abort you
must kill, and then another basic tenet of society comes into play: killing is illegal, so
back we go to square one. Does a handicapped person have the right to not have been born?
Taking a quick look at other issues, we know that doctors can detect some possible
problems with a fetus, including genetic disorders. Are the doctors God? Obviously not.
Remember they are still “practicing medicine." One day they will get it right and stop
practicing and start performing. Until that time, nothing is concrete.
Another issue to consider would be legalized eugenics. How? Well, if you’re a women,
pregnant, and the doctor says you are carrying a child that could be deformed,
disabled, or have some sort of illegal genetic problem, such as alopecia, could you be
forced to have an abortion? Would you be stigmatized by your peers if you opt not to
abort? One French pressure group, The Collective Against Handiphobia, denounced the new
judgment as “recognition of a right not to be born." A spokesman for the group said the
decision would encourage other parents to sue doctors and would make the abortion of
handicapped children standard practice. The French government said it would invite all
interested parties to a "global reflection" on the ethics of aborting handicapped
children, and that it would announce possible legislation in the autumn.
I hope the backers of the French court never hear about a group called Handi Cap Evasion.
It’s an association that was founded in 1988 in the Hautes-Alpes. The group helps
physically handicapped people to hike next to able-bodied people in France and beyond.
Sounds brave and daring, huh? One trip the group planned was a “hike" to the area of
Khumbu, a base camp of Mount Everest. The usual destination of such treks is the base camp
situated on Khumbu’s glacier, at the bottom of the "Ice Fall"; however, the top of Mount
Everest is out of sight from the base camp, according to Handi Cap Evasion’s website.
“This is the reason why we will make the ascent of the Kalla Pattar, a modest summit
(5,545 m) situated on Pumori 's side. It offers a wonderful view on the Evere [sic] and
the surrounding summits." The group explains that this particular trip normally lasts
about four weeks, and about 15 days of that time is spent trekking. The group also boasts
that the ascent of Mount Kalapathar (5,545 m.) is planned.
If the French court had any say over Handi Cap Evasion, as well as some of the the people
on the group’s tour, it would probably declare the handicapped folks to be illegal
citizens or illegal aliens and deport them back in time to a 1942-1945 Nazi Germany
laboratory for “treatment." Sure, I’m taking liberty with the seething sarcasm, but I
believe in being fair in comment and criticism. Fair is fair when it comes to commentary
on life, especially if you live in the public arena. If you make a really stupid decision,
you should know enough to be prepared for the repercussions and comments.
Pressure groups for the handicapped in France, as well as others around the world, have
said this decision was an invitation to discriminate against people with disabilities and
a legally sanctioned step towards eugenics, otherwise known as selective breeding, a
tactic employed by the Nazis, just in case that historical tidbit slipped your mind. Other
governments have worked with genocide to rid the land of certain peoples, but this
decision is stepping on the fertile and once-sacred grounds of the mother’s womb. What
next? Will the courts declare that breastfeeding is horrible because companies that
manufacture infant formula lose money?
Pretty lofty goals for a bunch of handicapped people, huh? They are some of the same
people the French court ruled, by default, should have been aborted.
One person, Fenris Wolf, wrote in a posting on the uk.people.support.depression newsgroup
that the thought of the handicapped suing because they were born is a rather disturbing
thought in and of itself. “it is important to remember the people sueing are the disabled
people, so certainly they believe that. I find it very sad that someone would sue because
they didn't want to have been born. I can understand it because I often wish I had never
been born, but I would never sue my mother."
Fenris goes on, discussing how the French court’s decision could be a springboard for
future lawsuits and decisions. “Any woman that brings a child up in difficult circumstances could be sued for having the child, by the child that didn't like his hard
upbringing. That is just absurd. Although it may have the positive upshoot of making
people think harder about their situations before convieving [sic] (which is the *most*
important time to consider the childs future) rather then blindly and irresponsibly giving
in to basic instincts and peer/media pressure.
In one debate on misc.kids, Mary Gordon argued whether courts or government should have
any hand in deciding what a viable human is in the end. “What I was reacting to was the
responders suggestion that society has no place for people with handicaps and defects -
i.e. that anyone who DOESN"T abort a child with a known problem is in the wrong. The court
decision infers that handicapped kids are mistakes who should never be born and have no
place because they can't make a contribution to society (whatever that means). And yes, if
that is the way they are viewed, then [sic] the same thinking will apply to the elderly,
or anyone else who is vunerable [sic]. This is the COURTS talking on behalf of the
society, and yes, I think saying that mom should have aborted is going way over the line
and intruding into painful family decisions that they have no business being involved in."
The court did, however, reject the claims for compensation from three handicapped
children, saying negligence on the part of their doctors had not been clearly established.
The court reaffirmed the November 2000 ruling that a child born with a grave handicap also
has, under certain conditions, a right to sue a doctor failing to recommend that the fetus
should be aborted. The court said that there must be a “direct causal link" between the
mistakes of diagnosis made by the doctor and the birth of a seriously disabled child.
The original judgment stemmed from a case filed on behalf of Nicolas Perruche, now 17, who
was born severely handicapped after his mother’s doctor failed to realize that she had
measles during her pregnancy.
Christine Boutin, a center-right member of the French parliament and who plans to stand as
an anti-abortion candidate in the French presidential election next year, said the
judgment invited a policy of “state eugenics," and would promote the “fantasy of a
handicap-free society."
Is eugenics good or bad? Well, since not one of us are God, and since no one has yet
developed a piece of equipment that can detect all possible disabilities, deformities, or
conditions, and since there is no measure to what a person can accomplish, eugenics
remains a evil to society. It’s an evil that need not be tried, forced, or legislated. If
abortion is a legal option and if a mother chooses that route, the decision will be a
burden she alone will carry. If states begin legislating who lives to exit the womb, what
comes next? Rules of natural progression dictate that things will deteriorate, not
improve, as time marches on.
|
"Did You Have the 'Right' to Be Born?"
