Babies are good, mkay

I don't remember exactly what spurred it, but I think it was on the last, now long-defunct, blog I had that I posted that currently about 90% of children with Down Syndrome aborted once their (loving) parents learn of their child's condition (thank you prenatal screening). How ironic that such a barbaric trend is only sustainable in this current age of advanced technology. On the heels of a recent recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that all mothers should be "screening" for Down Syndrome, not just those over 35, as had been the norm, that 90% looks to be going nowhere but up.

The NYT has a remarkably honest, in-focus piece about parents of Down Syndrome children, and their reactions to both the current abortion statistics and ACOG's recommendations. The article presents the parents as being on a united front against aborting children on the sole basis that they have Down Syndrome. The reasons covered run the gamut from pragmatic (fewer DS children in the future translates to fewer oportunities and more isolation in the future for their own children) to ethical (after all, isn't this eugenics?).

The parents have set out to educate prospective parents as well as doctors. The parents that DS doesn't prevent people from living full, rewarding lives. The doctors that beginning a diagnosis for DS with "I'm sorry" or "Unfortunately, I've got some bad news" is ill-advised, at best.

Anyway, read the article.

This one is also worth your time.

Whatever your views on abortion, there is no denying that 90% is fucking disgusting.

While we're on topic, let me just throw this out here. I try not to even discuss abortion with anyone who denies the human personhood of a fetus. If we can't even agree with what constitutes personhood, any argument about abortion is absolutely futile. As was evidenced last Thursday, however, sometime alcohol induces me to break that rule, resulting in drunken stalemate (yuck).

I maintain, however, that the argument for personhood is supremely philosophic, and thus supremely rational, and thus supremely impenetrable. Peter Kreeft, who, as a Thomist, Chestertonian, and Lewisian, is one of my favorite philosophers, gives the argument here as to why human persohnood begins at conception. The guy is one of my heroes. You can't argue with it, so don't even try.

Seriously.

That's ugly.

Waldo sent me this column for consumption, written by Spengler. No, not that Spengler.

The gist:

In the case of Pollock, people neither like his work nor the way it looks; what they like is the idea that the artist in his arrogance can redefine the world on his own terms.

Well worth the full read.

I don't dislike all modern art, and I even find some it interesting. I do, however, dislike the existentialist and nihilistic philosophic foundations upon on which much modern art rests. I also dislike it when people praise art for the sole reason that it is avant garde and/or untraditional. The greatest tyrannical act of the modern era has been the oppression and suppresion of the historical.

Lastly, I dislike it when people are afraid to call things ugly, or deny that some works, in fact, aren't classifiable as art. They are idiots.

Examples:

Not interesting. Not art.

Somewhat interesting. Decorative. Still not art.

Ugly. Brainless. Not art.

Transcendent. Sublime. Art.

Further reading:

A good thread discussing the aforementioned column, with great stuff from "Alex" there at the end.

"The Dying of Western Culture," by Navrazov