More on choice (and hypocrisy)

See this piece by Rahul K. Parikh, M.D. (emphasis added).

We could ask, given that [Sarah] Palin had no doubts about seeing her pregnancy through, why she bothered to take a genetic test. Why not, as you might expect a woman in her position and with her outspoken beliefs to do, decline any testing or counseling? Of course, it seems very reasonable to want to know about the health of your baby and to have time to prepare (emotionally and otherwise) for a baby that may have a genetic disorder. But that doesn't negate the fact that by having a blood test, Palin was given a choice about what to do.

And what she has chosen to do is fantastic. The love that she and her family have for Trig was clear in her speech at the Republican National Convention. It was inspirational to see a mother in a position of political power stand up for a child with special needs. But Palin was given a choice whether to have that child, something, if she had her way as a lawmaker, she wouldn't give others. According to legal experts, should Roe v. Wade be overturned, some states could outlaw abortion for Down syndrome or other birth defects, and women wouldn't have Palin's choice.

So while I respect Palin's decision to raise Trig, that's all the respect she will get from me. I don't see eye-to-eye with her on anything else: energy, guns, sex education and of course a woman's right to choose. Her supporters say that Trig signals that she practices what she preaches. Her decision to make her own choice but not grant it to others is a sign of her hypocrisy.