Pro Choice?

The tone of this post is sarcastic, cynical and hopeful. We went to CHOP (Children's Hospital of Philadelphia) this past Monday. We went to see a geneticist that is an "expert" in the syndrome that we thought Chad may have [ Kabuki Syndrome ]. He doesn't think Chad has Kabuki and has ordered several tests to look for other syndromes that fit Chads, lets say, "profile". One syndrome is Pallister Killian. After getting home Kim and I began to do some research on this syndrome and my first thought was lets stop looking and wait for the results. This is because Kabuki Syndrome appears to be something I would rather Chad have. Upon further consideration and contemplation, it really is clear that no matter what Chad may have, it does not change who he is and my thoughts went to the children affected by Pallister Killian Syndrome. I spent a long night learning all about pallister Killian. The syndrome is a "mosaic" and affects various kinds and numbers of cells and tissues and the extent of involvement(nice word)/severity(not as nice) varies from child to child. Some children do not sit until they are three years old and others are riding bikes. Some sites I looked at talked about what an incredible blessing some of the more "involved" children have been to their families and to many others. Other cites were more directed to the ideology of [this is where sarcasm and cynicism begins]"thankfully there is a genetic test so we can avoid all the unpleasantries of a child with a less than fulfilling quality of life and of course this is to save that child from having to endure such a life". One site was something like "fetus.net" where there was all kinds of information presented from the study of fetuses that had been freed from having to endure a less than perfect life. [This is where it gets more sarcastic and cynical]. I am sure that one thing that might cause uncertainty in making the decision of freeing a less that perfect child from enduring such a life is the uncertainty that the unborn child considered for termination may indeed be only slightly less than normal and may be able to have a mostly normal/non inconvenient[yes, read inconvenient for the parents]. To help those people struggling to make this decision [and please note this is not directed to those that have made such decisions in the past since judgment is not the intent hear, but is perhaps to provide context for others to not make the same decision] I have come up with an idea for a potential Bill to present to Congress. We can call it the "Certificate of Intent". What this would be is a granting of a "Certificate of Intent" to abort or terminate a potentially less than perfect baby or unborn child or "collection of cells that I am not willing to accept will become something I would acknowledge as human when it finally looks enough like such". What this certificate does is grant the owner of the "birthing" or "fetus" the right to consummate that termination, up to the age of 18, if it is decided by the certificate holder that the reasons for the "intent" were in fact valid. There should be no moral problems with this since the certificate is granted before the socially acceptable point of being human. If what is born is close to normal then this Bill will have saved innocent normal humans and those collections of cells that fulfill the reasons for [the intent of] termination are just what was wanted to be avoided and are apparently less than human anyway. What the certificate does is provide a chance for those that are "normal" that might otherwise be unjustly/unintentionally terminated. One problem might be defining the status of the "certificatees" since they are not considered human until age 18 and expiration of the "certificate". Should they be considered property? Should termination be allowed for reasons other than stated in the "certificate" or should the certificate be granted for any reason [legal that is] accepted for abortions in general? This Bill may require a little more thought. Did you know that it has been reported [Washington Post, I can provide a citation if anyone is interested] that the incidence of Downs Syndrome in the American population has decreased significantly since genetic tests became available? Americans tend to think of Hitler and his eugenics ideology as barbaric. The eugenics movement was not a new idea when Hitler embraced it [can you say Appalachians/hill people or retard?]. We in the USA continue in the movement[read "eugenics movement"] under a different name [nameless or is it a choice]? I do believe that we have a "right" to a choice, but we also need to understand that each choice comes with a consequence. I just hope [this is the hopeful part] that those that do not want to or can not care for those that are less than perfect would chose to accept at least the birthing consequence and let those that are willing, accept the blessing of welcoming the less than perfect into their lives.