Trig Palin and his witness to life

Gerson's article is well worth the read. I almost always find his writing to be based in the "compassionate conservatism" that might have been.

The point is important (I still wouldn't vote for Palin if I were American, mind). However, Downs babies weren't treated all that well in the Good Old Days, either - they were put in institutions.

Do you think this issue is straightforwardly conservative? Can't it be seen as hanging together with respect for unconventional families of all types? - celebrating human imperfections/differences, etc. Let's see some lesbian couples with Downs children??

I also find it difficult to square with pronatalist Social Darwinism of the mdavid type - Downs people do not reproduce, and consume resources that would be better expended on "normal" people.

And this feeds a social Darwinism in which the stronger are regarded as better, the dependent are viewed as less valuable, and the weak must occasionally be culled.

This is also a perfect description of American capitalism. Just a thought.

I also don't see much difference between this attitude and the culturally ubiquitous entitlement cult that produces such practices as male-child preference (China being the example most recently in the general awareness), the de facto priority given to physical prowess over intellectual ability, and the emotional value given to celebrity in general regardless of how narrow the accomplishment of the soi disant fame.

We have a morbid tracking of technology and advances in medicine here. 1,000 years ago deformed children were exposed or abandoned. 100 years ago they were hidden in back rooms or institutions. Today they are identified in utero and eliminated. Whatever one may say about the morality of abortion, it is exactly representative of human history.

KM--I believe the stat is 90% of babies WHO ARE IDENTIFIED WITH DOWN'S IN THE WOMB are aborted. It's an important distinction. And comes from medical personnel who work with pregnant women.

It is very true that children with disabilities were hardly treated well in the past. But doesn't it seem even more tragic then, that now, with better medical treatments, more acceptance of differences, all these advances, that we are still basically leaving these children on a windy hillside to die?

Gerson, useless as always. For all that hot air to be anything other than simpering, he'd have to provide data showing that the "imperfect" are being accorded any less love or dignity now that 90% of trisomy 21 fetuses are being aborted than they were before.

Wanna bet there's no data whatsoever showing that? And in fact, that if there's any data, it shows the opposite is true?

Bah!

-Oss

Abortion numbers for Downs babies are problematic, and not just because a lot of women who abort do not specify the reason.

Probably a majority of Downs babies die in utero, without outside intervention. We had a young friend who had determined to keep the baby, and whose entire family was much grieved when he suddenly died at 5 months gestational age. He just didn't have quite enough of the genetic building blocks right to make a go of it, and this is not at all uncommon. So, some of these "abortions" (my friend had labor induced after the baby died) are not really abortions at all, and perhaps most of the babies who were aborted would not have come home from the hospital in any case, intervention or no.

This is not, of course, to justify abortion. By that reasoning, killing an old man should escape legal penalty, since he was going to die pretty soon anyway.

The NYT relied on a 10 year old meta-analysis conducted in Europe. It's unclear whether the study even included U.S. studies.

There is similar 10 year old data suggesting similar rates in the U.S.

My younger of my brothers is fifteen years younger than me. He was a surprise to everyone in the family. My parents permitted me and my other brother, who was twelve at the time, to be closely involved in some of the prenatal screenings, as well as the birth. It was quite a learning experience for us, even if we couldn't bear to watch the actual moment of birth.

I remember the genetic counseling when they offered the amnio test. My mother was 36 or so at the time. My parents' reaction was automatic and instinctive. My parents dismissed the idea out of hand, because it raised the risk of miscarriage, which my mother had experienced twice and did not want to repeat. Also, neither of them would consider aborting the baby unless there was risk to my mother's life or health. They were both deeply religious, and though they disagreed on many things, they agreed on this decision instantly. They were married, holding water financially, with plenty of friends and family to call on. They could handle an imperfect baby.

The nurses did not give my parents any trouble at all on the decision. But they really should give expecting parents information on Down's Syndrome if their tests come back positive, so that they understand that raising and caring for such a child is a viable decision. That policy I support.

Anyway, Gerson writes about Rosemary Kennedy, Joe and Ethel's daughter, who had a mental disability and who was treated like a shameful family secret by her father, and even lobotomized.

Just a point of correction: Rosemary Kennedy was the daughter of Joseph and Rose Kennedy. Ethel is Rosemary's sister-in-law.

Children in general seem to be viewed as a burden by many in today's culture. Parents with just one or two children feel busy and oftentimes overwhelmed. The preoccupation with My Career and keeping oneself entertained with the latest products and technologies have squeezed children further toward the margins. So people purposefully wait longer to have children, and they're having fewer of them. It is no stretch to see the tendency to abort Down Syndrome babies with this same trend - "No time, no time, can't handle it". It is a reflection of the Culture of Death, for sure, but it is also an indictment against the Culture of Me.

They are also very aware of how brutally competitive the marketplace is, and they recognize that, 15-20 years from now, people without college degrees (hell, without *grad* degrees) in the US are essentially screwed. We see the increasing gap between rich and poor in this country, and we want to have fewer children to ensure that they end up on the right side of that divide.

Because of course having a lot of money is the goal of life; being on the "right side" of the divide means having money.

And, yes, they don't want to sacrifice their careers or their lifestyles in the name of having children, because they want to live full and interesting lives, both as parents and as individuals. We all want to be the types of parents who can give our kids experiences like trips abroad or foreign language tutoring or things like that, partially because we value those things in our own lives and we hope they will value them, too, and also because they are again going to need them as a competitive advantage when they're older. We also want to be role models for our future kid(s) - people who have successful careers and a wide range of fulfilling life experiences that don't all revolve around our families.

God forbid, of course, that we should make sacrifices for our children. And again, we find the idea that trips abroad and the like are the sine qua non of the fulfilled human life.

Brendan, you've stated your values admirably. (I mean, your clarity of statement is admirable, if not the values.)

Down here on planet earth, unless you are the heir to Great Wealth, all these experiences will be available to your children only if both parents work full time, and at fairly high-paying jobs. This means that the kids may see a lot of their French tutor, but not a lot of their parents.

You don't say whether you have children yourself.

I do. There's a lot of foreign travel, a lot of "fulfilling" opportunities, and a lot of money, that I'm missing as a result. But it wasn't a sacrifice. I got more pleasure out of those kids than I could possibly have gotten out of all the worldly goods you've dragged in front of us in your message.

If you don't feel that way about it, and if you haven't had children yet, let me advise you not to have any. One never knows when a child will turn out like Trig Palin, or when a child born "normal" suffers a catastrophic accident, and the result is a child whose demands overwhelm the good life you outline.

When everything revolves around the home, life gets stagnant and ceases to be worth living.

Geez, I don't know why that post of Brendan's has got me going.

The part of my life which revolves around my home and the people there is the most rewarding of all, save only the part of my life that revolves around God. I wouldn't sell it for 1,000 trips to Europe. 1,000,000 trips. Plus a few graduate degrees and language courses thrown in for good measure. I like to think my kids see it the same way; the way they're raising their own children suggests that they do.

I'll quit now.

Brendan writes: They are also very aware of how brutally competitive the marketplace is, and they recognize that, 15-20 years from now, people without college degrees (hell, without *grad* degrees) in the US are essentially screwed. We see the increasing gap between rich and poor in this country, and we want to have fewer children to ensure that they end up on the right side of that divide.

Oh, please. Don't drink this kool-aid; it's not worth it. There are *many* things people can do without a four year college degree. If this is really what "generation X-Box" thinks about life and the future, that's terribly sad.

One reason there is an increasing gap between the rich and poor in the USA is *because* people believe this nonsense. Parents go into debt - even bankrupting themselves - thinking they have to "Baby Einstein" their kids from Day One. "If little Georgie doesn't get into the right preschool / on the right sports team / into Harvard, his Life is Over." That's just a recipe to create neurotic, unhappy children.

And yes, I am 100% with Leo above, when he says "The part of my life which revolves around my home and the people there is the most rewarding of all ..."

Brendan, I've raised three kids, two of whom are pretty much adults now and one who's almost there, so I think I have a tiny bit of experience under my belt. It is *not* necessary to provide "foreign language tutors" and "trips abroad" for a person to be either well-educated or happy. It is not necessary to treat a child like a precious little china doll, ready to fracture at any second if they wear the wrong kind of baby shoes or hear a cross word, or if the parents aren't wealthy. They don't need expensive toys or endless lessons.

Sorry to come down hard on you, dude, but this kind of materialism does not produce happiness.

It looks to me like Brendan has expressed his personal preferences regarding having children and instead of taking an attitude of, "Well, whatever you think will make you happy. Good luck with that," it looks like you are downright offended because he doesn't share your values.

Or maybe you think his expressed values are shallow. Well, what of it? What's it to you?

Um, I donno. Good question.

Of course those values are shallow (and that's throwing roses at them!) but so what? There are shallow, materialistic people in this world. They probably shouldn't have children. God forbid, in fact. Good luck with that and all that.

I guess I feel like, there's so much more to life. If someone posted here on one of Rod's Foodie Topics that french fries from McDonald's is the world's most refined food (a view I actually hold myself) there would be a flurry of foodies rushing to correct this notion, and rightly so. There are more refined choices, not to mention healthier ones.

There are in fact better foods than french fries. There are in fact more important and more satisfying values than having a lot of money and batting back and forth to Europe (or wherever). At some level I'm appalled to hear someone in Brendan's generation articulate such inadequate values. I fear for my descendants.

But I do need to calm down, you're right on that one. I'm assuming that Brendan doesn't have any children. If he did he wouldn't make dismissive comments about the satisfactions of home life. (I hope!) He basically doesn't know what he's talking about, in other words.

But on this blog, which is dedicated to "crunchy" values, and to the values of spirituality and family, I also think it's important to confront the rotting materialism of this culture here and wherever we find in, in season and out of season.

Because of course having a lot of money is the goal of life; being on the "right side" of the divide means having money.

There isn't any single "goal" to life. People define their own goals. However, in practice, most of the goals people end up defining for themselves do require money. It's also easier to give up money that you have than it is to need money that you don't have. If and when I have children (actually "child," not "children," most likely, according to current plans with my partner), and they grow up to want a lifestyle that doesn't require a lot of money, good for them. If, however, they want a lifestyle that *does* require a lot of money, and they're not capable of getting it, what then? It's better to have money and not need it than to need money and not have it, so I think it's best to presume that setting

God forbid, of course, that we should make sacrifices for our children.

People should expect to make sacrifices for their children, but there comes a point where the value of having the children is outweighed by the sacrifices.

And again, we find the idea that trips abroad and the like are the sine qua non of the fulfilled human life.

They are by my personal definition of "fulfilled." Your mileage may vary.

Down here on planet earth, unless you are the heir to Great Wealth, all these experiences will be available to your children only if both parents work full time, and at fairly high-paying jobs.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

You don't say whether you have children yourself.

I don't. My partner and I are planning on taking stock of our lives when she's about 30 and deciding then whether or not we want to have a child.

There's a lot of foreign travel, a lot of "fulfilling" opportunities, and a lot of money, that I'm missing as a result. But it wasn't a sacrifice. I got more pleasure out of those kids than I could possibly have gotten out of all the worldly goods you've dragged in front of us in your message.

I know a pretty sizeable number of people who are able to have both. I don't think it's unreasonable of me to plan with that goal in mind. If, however, we have to choose, my partner and I agree we would rather go the childfree route than have a child if it required us to have lower standards of living than either of us want.

One never knows when a child will turn out like Trig Palin,

Of course we can know that. There are tests to screen for that now. We will not be having any children like Trig Palin.

or when a child born "normal" suffers a catastrophic accident, and the result is a child whose demands overwhelm the good life you outline.

The odds of catastrophic accidents of that sort are pretty low. In the unlikely event of such an accident, we would deal with it like we would one of us suffering a similar accident and make changes to our plans accordingly.

And I didn't even mention God, or any sort of spirituality, in my analysis, Brendan. You might give these issues some thought.

I have, believe me.

There is no spiritual tradition known to me which enthrones a big bank account as a major life goal

It's not a goal in and of itself for me, either. It is, realistically, a prerequisite for other life goals. In any case, I'm not especially interested in the baggage of any particular spiritual tradition for its own sake.

The part of my life which revolves around my home and the people there is the most rewarding of all, save only the part of my life that revolves around God. I wouldn't sell it for 1,000 trips to Europe. 1,000,000 trips. Plus a few graduate degrees and language courses thrown in for good measure. I like to think my kids see it the same way; the way they're raising their own children suggests that they do.

Good for you. My partner and I have other priorities.

Oh, please. Don't drink this kool-aid; it's not worth it. There are *many* things people can do without a four year college degree.

There's nothing I'd personally want to do. If my hypothetical offspring finds something that he or she would like to do that doesn't require it, more power to them. I think it's probably more likely that they will need a degree to do whatever they want to do, but even if they don't, it's probably most prudent to do everything I can to give them the option, don't you think?

If this is really what "generation X-Box" thinks about life and the future, that's terribly sad.

What's wrong with X-Boxes? I don't really play video games much myself, but I don't see how it's any less worthy a pursuit than, say, going fishing or taking part in a church bake sale or something.

One reason there is an increasing gap between the rich and poor in the USA is *because* people believe this nonsense.

No, it's because part of the country is amazingly productive as a result of being plugged into the high-tech global economy, and the other part is getting left behind because they consistently devalue education.

Sorry to come down hard on you, dude, but this kind of materialism does not produce happiness.

I wouldn't call it materialism, per se, but in any case, it does for me. I'm a pretty happy guy.

My life is much more interesting now that I am a homemaker raising and home-educating my four children than it ever was when I was in college or working.

I'm glad you feel that way. I know a lot of moms, and my life is a heck of a lot more interesting than any of theirs, from everything I can see.

Do you read this blog regularly?

Just started to recently. I think it's good to engage with the diametrical opposite position periodically, and "crunchy conservatism" is pretty much the exact opposite of everything I value and believe. To critique a few points from the "Crunchy Con Manifesto":

"Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract."

Small, local and particular are good because they serve as Petri dishes for ideas and technologies and lifestyles which can be more widely adopted if they work well enough. However, Global and Abstract are both basically good, and New is generally better than Old.

"Beauty is more important than efficiency."

Beauty is entirely subjective, but, at least to me, beauty in many ways is efficiency, and efficiency beauty.

"The relentlessness of media-driven pop culture deadens our senses to authentic truth, beauty, and wisdom."

False dichotomy, based on the false presumption that any version of truth or any notion of beauty is "authentic." "Authenticity" is a social construct like any other, and it's a less useful idea than most. Getting out of the habit of dividing things up into authentic/inauthentic is an important step towards wisdom, to me, anyway. Again, YMMV.

But to me it was obvious that the answer was not delaying parenting until we had everything to make a perfect childhood--or go to the extreme of choosing a "childfree" life--but rather to give parenting my full attention rather than trying to split my efforts among a variety of pursuits: work, hobbies, "lifestyle choices," personal growth and oh yeah, parenting.

I don't know a lot of people like that and that's never seemed obvious to me or to the people I spend time with. I imagine that a lot of this is regional/cultural/class-based.

You claim a very elitist view of raising children: either wait until you have enough money/time/personal devotion to give them every competitive advantage or don't have them at all. Why is it a problem? Because at no time in human history will there ever be a time in which this is true for most, let alone all, people. Is having a child to be the privileged prize of only the best and brightest? Think of where this line of thought takes us.

One of the most common things people I know in my age bracket will say about child-bearing is that it's kind of obscene that we require people to get a license to drive a car but just anyone can pop out a kid. Most people, when pressed, will realize that forcing people to get a license to breed is a bad idea on a policy level for any number of reasons, but it still retains a lot of appeal on a theoretical level for a lot of people, including me. It's one of those issues where practical concerns trump everything else: I won't pursue this power over others because I don't want them to have this power over me.

So, yes, I've thought about where that line of thought takes us, and it's appealing, but impractical.

Waiting for the perfect child to come along (or manufacturing that child), to fit our planned perfect childhood with every Competitive Advantage--and aborting all the unfit ones that have the temerity to ruin our plans--is a foolish and revolting philosophy as well.

How so? I'm all over genetic manipulation and enhancement of any and every kind, and have no qualms about abortion for any reason. Personally, I think this whole fatalistic "just accept whatever happens and find the beauty in God's plan" approach is foolish and revolting as well. Why not just become medieval peasants while we're at it, toiling away in ignorance, in the mud and the filth and dying of plague? That would be very "authentic" and crunchy. There's nothing noble or enriching about unnecessary suffering or the unnecessary renunciation of pleasure in the name of some kind of farcical notion of "authenticity." Tradition is the same way: if something sucks, but we've been doing it that way for a long time, that just means it's sucked for a longer period of time.

I guess I feel like, there's so much more to life.

I feel the same way. There are sights to be seen, books to be read, movies to be watched, friends and lovers to meet, adventures to be had, new discoveries and interesting experiences around every corner. Why give up all that?

Re: things one can do without a college degree--it USED to be possible to have a comfortable, secure life without any college at all. There used to be such a thing as a blue-collar career, with promotions, raises, and benefits. Now, just about the only people who have such positions are on the verge of retirement. And when they do retire, they will be replaced by "part-time", "temporary", no-benefit workers who will spend their lives bouncing from one "full-time part-time" "permanent temporary" job to another for pretty much the same wages until they are too worn out to work at all. Not that the future is that much brighter for most college graduates, but they at least have a chance at a career.

It may be possible for somebody with this kind of work life to have a decent and interesting PERSONAL life, but it's not something I'd encourage my kids to count on.

"I'm assuming that Brendan doesn't have any children. If he did he wouldn't make dismissive comments about the satisfactions of home life. (I hope!) He basically doesn't know what he's talking about, in other words."

I'm assuming that Leo hasn't experienced a lot of foreign travel, and hasn't mastered a language other than English. If he had, he wouldn't make dismissive comments about the satisfaction of travel and connecting with other cultures. He basically doesn't know what he's talking about, in other words.

But the narcissism of the Moran Generation extends to their offspring, that their kids might be an extension of them with all of the control, molding and service that implies. Not only must the world serve their warped self image, but their children must be developed into a perfect reflection of that image.

Everyone molds their kids. Every decision any parent makes molds kids into the type of people their parents want them to be. There's no default state for kids - that's one reason humans are so adaptable and can live in virtually any environment. How is what you're advocating any different? You're teaching your kids your religious beliefs, you hope that they grow up to value the things that you value, and ultimately you want them to be happy and to be "good people." But everyone's understanding of what constitutes "happiness" and what path is most likely to lead to happiness is different, and the same goes double for what constitutes a "good person."

So, yes, I'm sure that if and when I have kid(s), my own values will have an impact on how I raise them. If you want to call that narcissism, fine, but I fail to see how it's any different from what anyone else does when they raise their kids.

Brendan, I would seriously question choosing a lifestyle that is so dependent on advanced technology (the transhumanism you mentioned before)

Your lifestyle is equally dependent on advanced technology. Self-sufficiency is pretty much an illusion with 6 billion + people on the planet. If the system goes down, we're all dead anyway. Might as well spend your life worrying about the planet getting hit by a rogue comet.

and a subversion of thousands of years of human social norms.

The nuclear family model people think of as the "norm" is really pretty recent. It's about 200 years old at most, and rose as an adaptation to early capitalism and the beginnings of industrialization. It began to die as industrialization itself began to die. Human social structure is fluid and always adapts to changing circumstances. The fact that religious conservatives resist this basic truth is probably a contributing factor to the much higher rates of family dysfunction in areas dominated by religious conservatives. Clinging to a system that no longer works will do that.

Besides, the basic hygeinic norms we practice in the developed world now are pretty radically different from the ones that prevailed before the advent of the germ theory of disease. Changing them worked out pretty well for us, I think. "Old" does not mean "useful."

The rest of your arguments are merely selfish and immature.

Right back at ya. I could just as easily say that your arguments are selfish in that you seem to be more interested in going down with the ship of a dying cultural form than giving your children the tools they will need to succeed in the world they will be living in. It's all about you and your entitlement to find validation and fulfillment through child-rearing, without giving any serious consideration to the question of whether you should be having kids at all. I could also say your arguments are immature in that you don't seem to have the perspective necessary to see that the values of the culture you're attached to are not eternal truths but rather situation-specific cultural adaptations. The analogy I could make would be to a child who hasn't yet realized that Mommy and Daddy are not invincible and are not always right. You inflate your values and your traditions into having some sort of transcendent cosmic significance they don't really have, because they're yours, in the same way a young child can't really understand that rest of the world doesn't see Bob and Mary as your omnipotent omnibenevolent MOMMY and DADDY. You can no more imagine a different social structure than the one you know existing without the sky falling in than a child can imagine being without his or her parents. I'm sure it's scary to really think about how big and diverse the world is, and how boundlessly adaptable humans are, and how utterly transitory and ultimately meaningless the cultural values you hold dear are, but coming to terms with that is the first sign of maturity.

Meditate on this: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." You dismiss the nobility of suffering or deprivation for "farcical authenticity," but is there room for nobility for any cause in your philosophy?

There's definitely a level of nobility in a person sacrificing in the name of what they sincerely believe is the betterment of others. However, compassion without wisdom is not only kind of tragic, but also useless at best and counterproductive at worst. Bush, for instance, will always talk about the strength of his convictions and his unwillingness to back down. That is admirable, in its way, but I generally admire someone who has smart ideas more than someone who has dumb ones, no matter how respectably they defend those ideas. I usually don't criticize conservative Christians for being hypocrites, for example, but rather for having bad ideas. Whether or not individual Christians walk the walk is a minor concern if the walk isn't actually doing them or anyone else any good.

The culture crunchy cons extol as great and noble is, in fact, broken. It no longer meets the needs and preferences of people in 21st century America at a cost they will usually regard as a worthwhile trade-off. If it works for you, great, just please don't get in the way of other people who are actually thriving in the new world that's emerging. My culture has no greater or lesser claim on objective truth than yours does, but mine provides me and a number of other people with measurable, tangible benefits in terms of standards of living.