As everyone in the United States knows, Sarah Palin found out early in her pregnancy that her son would have Down's Syndrome.  Rather than aborting Trig, she went through with the pregnancy and now has a five-month-old beautiful baby boy.  Even if you are pro-abortion, it's a good story, right?  Every woman has the right to "choose", as they like to say.  Except you're supposed to choose what liberals tell you to choose.

Provenzo isn't the first to suggest Trig should have been aborted.  But he is the latest, and here's some excerpts from his disgusting column:

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 of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)--a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.

A parent has a moral obligation to provide for his or her children until these children are equipped to provide for themselves. Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and 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.

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 having 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.

And 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.

...

[W]e 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. At Noodlefood, Diana Hsieh condemns such a stand as "the worship of retardation." Given that Palin had complete foreknowledge of her child's severe disability yet nevertheless chose to have it, it is hard not to see her choice as anything less.

Pretty vile stuff.

So, I guess in this guy's mind, we should have no Helen Kellers or Franklin D. Roosevelts; no Lord Byrons, Lord Nelsons, or Beethovens. Is that the argument? That unless you're 100% "healthy" -- and by whose standards is "healthy" defined anyway? -- you don't have a right to live? And what gives this guy the right to decide?

And just so you know, this guy is no small potatoes columnist either.  He's written for the Washington Times and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He's been on Bill Maher's show. He isn't some minor-league columnist who no one knows and has never heard of.

Monica's story
Liz's story
Jaime's story
Stephanie's story
Sue's story
Dawn's story