Iceland Is ‘Eradicating’ Down Syndrome – by Eradicating the People Who Have It

Iceland has nearly “eradicated” Down syndrome … by encouraging parents to test their babies in the womb and abort them if their results show a likelihood of the genetic condition.

According to a recent CBS report, just one or two babies are born with Down syndrome on average per year in Iceland, which has a population of 330,000. In the country, close to 100 percent of pregnant women who test positive for Down syndrome in prenatal screenings choose abortion.

While Iceland is ahead when it comes to “eradicating” people with Down syndrome, America isn’t too far behind. Among U.S. women, an estimated 67 percent whose test results indicate a Down syndrome child decide to abort the baby.

Glenn looked at this heartbreaking story on radio Wednesday.

“Am I supposed to say, ‘Oh, look at that beautiful child that should be dead’?” he asked of the CBS story, which featured an image of a little girl from Iceland with Down syndrome who was one of the few to survive.

Glenn talked about people with Down syndrome and all that they have to offer the world.

“Down syndrome people are the best among us,” he said. “They truly are.”

GLENN: There was a story that I saw yesterday from CBS News. And it reported that Iceland is leading the world in, quote, eradicating Down syndrome births. End quote.

There was a tweet that said that. And then it had a picture of this really beautiful child. It said, "Iceland is on pace to virtually eliminate Down syndrome through abortion." And has this beautiful child of about four years old in the snow hat and everything else.

Am I supposed to like that? Am I supposed to say, "Oh, look at that beautiful child that should be dead?"

This is one of the -- this, to me -- and I might be alone, this to me is the biggest symbol of the doom of humanity and the doom of our society.

We're talking about Down syndrome babies and a country that has now made it so easy and so right to abort your child if your test comes back and says they'll have Down syndrome.

They have taken the most beautiful children and beautiful people that I honestly have ever met. I have met spiritual leaders, big spiritual leaders. "Uh-huh. Right. Okay. Well, I'll listen to you on the pulpit, maybe, for about five minutes. You're a fraud." And then I've met people like Billy Graham, who is absolutely the real deal. But every Down syndrome child or person that I've ever met is a spiritual giant.

Years ago, I was young and had never spent any time around Down syndrome. And really people of different abilities really at all. I had no impact in my life personally with it. And I remember I was working in New Haven, Connecticut. And the Special Olympics, the global games for Special Olympics happened in New Haven, Connecticut. And the entire town left for the week. And it was really sad. Because the media had said, "Oh, traffic is going to be horrible." So everyone went on vacation for those ten days, and it was a ghost town.

And we went and we were working a lot of the events. And I will tell you that what -- the impact that that had on my life was profound. And the impact that I walked away with immediately is, you know -- and this is in the day -- in the early '90s, when we could still use this word. And I remember thinking, "You know, the world deems these children retarded." I'm the retarded one. I'm the one whose growth has been retarded from -- from -- from greed and malice and -- and ego and the world and stuff and sexuality and whatever it is.

Down syndrome people are the best among us. They truly are. It's not some politically correct, "Oh, they're the best among us." No, they're not. Yeah, these guys are.

They will be our rulers on the other side. Because they get it. They are not afraid -- all guile has been taken from them.

And CBS reports, "Through abortion, Iceland is the first to nearly eradicate these people." Thumbs up. That is not progress. Let's call it what it is: That's eugenics. That is Margaret Sanger's most base dream: Get rid of the undesirables. Get rid of the people who can't really work for a living, don't really have any quality of life.

I'd rather have their quality of life than mine. I would so much rather go through life loving everybody I meet.

Do you ever get to a point to where you don't want to understand the world? You just don't want to understand that there's just a lot of bad people.

Don't you ever get to the point where you're just like, "I -- I don't want to be a part of that anymore?"

This is what the article says: Other aren't lagging too far behind in Down syndrome termination rates. Iceland is on pace to virtually eliminate Down syndrome through abortion.

You're not eliminating Down syndrome. You're eliminating people. People.

You're not going in and genetically splicing something. You are eliminating people.

I'm concerned about the genetic splice. I'm a father of a daughter of special needs. Only a parent can truly understand this. A parent of special needs.

I would give my life for my daughter to have an easier life. But I would not take her life away because her life is tough. She's one of the best people I know. And she's made me such a better -- I mean, it's bad. Because I also realize, man, I've got a lot to learn. I've got a long way to go to be a good person. And it's a constant reminder to me. It's a -- she is a constant humbling of me.

Would I abort her? Never.

If I could abort the mean things that people have been -- have said to her, if I could abort the mean actions that people have shown her, if I could abort the pain that she has felt from those actions -- my daughter changed in the second grade. She had a friend who she never went over to their house. She never -- she -- we never met her friend. But it was her best friend. And she would come home and she would talk about her best friend all the time.

And one day, she came home, and she told us about how her best friend was having a birthday party. And she invited everybody. Said, "Oh, that's great, Mary. When -- when is the party?" And cheerfully, "Oh, I wasn't invited."

"What? I thought you said she invited everybody in the class."

"She did. But she didn't invite me." And she followed it up immediately with, "But that's okay. That's okay. I'm fine. I'm fine. And I'm just glad -- and I know she's going to have a great party."

I don't -- I don't think I stopped crying for two days. But I'd like that to go away? Yeah. But that has nothing to do with the way she was born. It has everything to do with the way, you know, normal people are born.

I would ask -- when I saw this story and I saw this sweet child, the bottom of a CBS tweet, with all kinds of likes underneath it, I thought, "We can go no lower." Unfortunately, we can. But not as the people we've been.

If this is the people -- this is a new chapter of humanity. And we've seen it before. It's the way the world usually is. The last 200 years have been an anomaly. The world usually is like the Game of Thrones. And we just won't be the same when we pass this door and cross its threshold.

And I would ask that you would beg for forgiveness and beg for God to heal our hearts and heal our land. Because I just don't think there's a lot left here in our corner before we turn real dark.

The good news: Everything is a choice. And I used to be a guy who was suicidal because I never thought things could change. And then I realized, everything can change the moment I decide.

The moment you decide, "I'm not going to be a part of that," the moment you decide, "Not on my watch," the moment you decide to choose love over hate, to choose hope over fear, you're going to be okay. But it has to be a conscious choice. It has to be one you have really thought about and you have spoken out loud.

Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Mario Tama/Getty Images

All the outrage this week has mainly focused on one thing: the evil Trump administration and its minions who delight in taking children from their illegal immigrant parents and throwing them all in dungeons. Separate dungeons, mind you.

That makes for a nice, easy storyline, but the reality is less convenient. Most Americans seem to agree that separating children from their parents — even if their parents entered the US illegally — is a bad thing. But what if that mom and dad you're trying to keep the kids with aren't really the kids' parents? Believe it or not, fraud happens.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

While there are plenty of heartbreaking stories of parents simply seeking a chance for a better life for their children in the US, there are also corrupt, abusive human traffickers who profit from the illegal immigration trade. And sorting all of this out is no easy task.

This week, the Department of Homeland Security said that since October 2017, more than 300 children have arrived at the border with adults claiming to be their parents who turned out not to be relatives. 90 of these fraud cases came from the Rio Grande Valley sector alone.

In 2017, DHS reported 46 causes of fraudulent family claims. But there have already been 191 fraud cases in 2018.

Shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pointed out this 315 percent increase, the New York Times was quick to give these family fraud cases "context" by noting they make up less than one percent of the total number of illegal immigrant families apprehended at the southern border. Their implication was that Nielsen was exaggerating the numbers. Even if the number of fraud cases at the border was only 0.001 percent, shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

This is the most infuriating part of this whole conversation this week (if you can call it a "conversation") — that both sides have an angle to defend. And while everyone's busy yelling and making their case, children are being abused.

What if we just tried, for two seconds, to love having mercy more than we love having to be right all the time?

Remember when cartoons were happy things? Each panel took you on a tiny journey, carrying you to an unexplored place. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes:

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other artform gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it's a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between . . . panels is a kind of magic only comics can create.

When that magic is manipulated or politicized, it often devolves the artform into a baseless thing. Yesterday, Occupy Wall Street published the perfect example of low-brow deviation of the artform: A six-panel approach at satire, which imitates the instructions-panel found in the netted cubbyhole behind seats on airplanes. The cartoon is a critique of the recent news about immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border. It is a step-by-step guide to murdering US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.

RELATED: Cultural appropriation has jumped the shark, and everyone is noticing

The first panel shows a man shoving an infant into a cage meant for Pomeranians. The following five panels feature instructions, and include pictures of a cartoonish murder.

The panels read as follows:

  1. If an ICE agent tries to take your child at the border, don't panic.
  2. Pull your child away as quickly as possibly by force.
  3. Gently tell your child to close his/her eyes and ears so they won't witness what you are about to do.
  4. Grab the ICE agent from behind and push your knife into his chest with an upward thrust, causing the agent's sternum to break.
  5. Reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart.
  6. Hold his bloody heart out for all other agents to see, and tell them that the same fate awaits them if they f--- with your child again.

Violent comics are nothing new. But most of the time, they remain in the realms of invented worlds — in other words, not in our own, with reference to actual people, let alone federal agents.

The mainstream media made a game of crying racism with every cartoon depiction of Obama during his presidency, as well as during his tenure as Senator, when the New Yorker, of all things, faced scrutiny for depicting him in "Muslim clothing." Life was a minefield for political cartoonists during the Obama era.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

This year, we saw the leftist outrage regarding The Simpsons character Apu — a cartoon representation of a highly-respected, though cartoonishly-depicted, character on a cartoon show composed of cartoonishly-depicted characters.

We all remember Charlie Hebdo, which, like many outlets that have used cartoon satire to criticize Islam, faced the wrath and ire of people unable to see even the tamest representation of the prophet, Muhammad.

Interesting, isn't it? Occupy Wall Street publishes a cartoon that advocates murdering federal agents, and critics are told to lighten up. Meanwhile, the merest depiction of Muhammad has resulted in riots throughout the world, murder and terror on an unprecedented scale.

The intersection of Islam and comics is complex enough to have its own three-hour show, so we'll leave it at that, for now. Although, it is worth mentioning the commentary by satirical website The Onion, which featured a highly offensive cartoon of all the major religious figures except Muhammad. It noted:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street is free to publish any cartoon they like. Freedom of speech, and so on—although there have been several instances in which violent cartoons were ruled to have violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the First Amendment.

Posting it to Twitter is another issue — this is surely in violation of Twitter's violent content policy, but something tells me nothing will come of it. It's a funny world, isn't it? A screenshot of a receipt from Chick-fil-A causes outrage but a cartoon advocating murder gets crickets.

RELATED: Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud concludes that, "Today the possibilities for comics are — as they've always been — endless. Comics offers . . . range and versatility, with all the potential imagery of film and painting plus the intimacy of the written word. And all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see."

Smile, and keep moving forward.

Crude and awful as the Occupy Wall Street comic is, the best thing we can do is nod and look elsewhere for the art that will open our eyes. Let the lunatics draw what they want, let them stew in their own flawed double standards. Otherwise, we're as shallow and empty as they are, and nothing good comes of that. Smile, and keep moving forward.

Things are getting better. Show the world how to hear, how to learn, how to see.

People should start listening to Nikki Haley

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Okay. Let's take a vote. You know, an objective, quantifiable count. How many resolutions has the UN Human Rights Council adopted condemning dictatorships? Easy. Well. How do you define "dictatorship"?

Well, one metric is the UN Human Rights Council Condemnation. How many have the United Nations issued to China, with a body count higher than a professional Call of Duty player?

Zero.

How about Venezuela, where socialism is devouring its own in the cruelest, most unsettling ways imaginable?

Zero.

And Russia, home of unsettling cruelty and rampant censorship, murder and (actual) homophobia?

Zero.

Iraq? Zero. Turkey? Iraq? Zero. Cuba? Zero. Pakistan? Zero.

RELATED: Nikki Haley just dropped some serious verbal bombs on Russia at the UN

According to UN Human Rights Council Condemnations, 2006-2016, none of these nations is as dangerous as we'd imagined. Or, rather, none of them faced a single condemnation. Meanwhile, one country in particular has faced unbelievable scrutiny and fury — you'll never guess which country.

No, it's not Somalia. It's Israel. With 68 UN Human Rights Council Condemnations! In fact, the number of total United Nations condemnations against Israel outnumbers the total of condemnations against all other countries combined. The only country that comes close is Syria, with 15.

The Trump administration withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday in protest of what it perceives as an entrenched bias against Israel and a willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members.

In an address to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley said:

Let's remember that the Hamas terrorist organization has been inciting violence for years, long before the United States decided to move our embassy. This is what is endangering the people of Gaza. Make no mistake, Hamas is pleased with the results from yesterday... No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.

Maybe people should start listening to Haley. Hopefully, they will. Not likely, but there's no crime in remaining hopeful.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?