Richard Dawkins: Immoral not to abort a fetus with Down's

[It'sFunToRun]

Interesting article BUT this is still just a screening test, and not a diagnostic test.

The current procedure is that pregnant women are given (unless they opt out) a test that screens a blood sample and an ultrasound of the fetus' neck, and then women who are at a statistically higher risk are called and offered an amnio. The amnio (or CVS) is what you need in order to make an accurate diagnosis, but it's invasive and carries a risk of miscarriage.

This new test is more accurate that the existing screening test. It is NOT more accurate than CVS. The new test accuracy is 45%, vs. 4.2% for the existing screening test. It would just mean that fewer women would get that call telling them that they are at increased risk and that fewer risky and invasive procedures would be done as a result. It does not eliminate the need for a diagnostic test if the result is positive.

I misunderstood; thank you for explaining. :) If I were pregnant, I'd have to do the math to compare the chance of accidentally miscarrying a healthy baby by having the amnio, to accidentally not aborting an affected one because I didn't do the amnio.

[It'sFunToRun]

It's well known, and the media loves to show off high functioning Downs Syndrome youth & young adults as "inspirational."

The reality of Downs that I've seen runs the gamut, from the smiling, happy child who loves Arthur and thinks she can be an actress someday; to the angry adult who violently attacked my aunt who was helping him to find work. It's disgusting that the media has such a hard-on for Downs, because first of all, people with Downs are people, not necessarily "inspirational" stories, and second, because for every few smiling happy kid, there are adults in adult foster care who are NOT happy. The higher functioning they are, the more likely they are to know that they are "different" and people treat them differently. It's unfair. It's unfair to them, because it's not their fault. It's unfair to the caregivers who have to take care of adults with this disability once their family is worn out. It's unfair.

I'm not going to say that everyone should abort their fetus if it tests positive for Downs, but I'd like more people to see the reality. The divorce rate among couples who have disabled children is higher. The anger and frustration from adults living in foster care with Downs is awful. The parents who insist on taking care of their downs child as an adult are exhausted. It's not something I would want for my child, personally. And yes, not every disability can be tested for, but some can be tested for.

In other news about Downs, and why we shouldn't abort them - Medical Testing! (slight sarcasm, but I heard this article on NPR the other day and thought it was interesting and added another aspect to the "should we be compelled to abort or not" argument)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/08 ... s-research

I'm sorry about what happened to your aunt, that's really awful. The media loves stupid people, that's all there is to say.

[Mama Mia]

It's well known, and the media loves to show off high functioning Downs Syndrome youth & young adults as "inspirational."

The reality of Downs that I've seen runs the gamut, from the smiling, happy child who loves Arthur and thinks she can be an actress someday; to the angry adult who violently attacked my aunt who was helping him to find work. It's disgusting that the media has such a hard-on for Downs, because first of all, people with Downs are people, not necessarily "inspirational" stories, and second, because for every few smiling happy kid, there are adults in adult foster care who are NOT happy. The higher functioning they are, the more likely they are to know that they are "different" and people treat them differently. It's unfair. It's unfair to them, because it's not their fault. It's unfair to the caregivers who have to take care of adults with this disability once their family is worn out. It's unfair.

I'm not going to say that everyone should abort their fetus if it tests positive for Downs, but I'd like more people to see the reality. The divorce rate among couples who have disabled children is higher. The anger and frustration from adults living in foster care with Downs is awful. The parents who insist on taking care of their downs child as an adult are exhausted. It's not something I would want for my child, personally. And yes, not every disability can be tested for, but some can be tested for.

In other news about Downs, and why we shouldn't abort them - Medical Testing! (slight sarcasm, but I heard this article on NPR the other day and thought it was interesting and added another aspect to the "should we be compelled to abort or not" argument)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/08 ... s-research

So then where do you draw the line? Right now there are a limited number of specific conditions that can be tested for, but that will likely increase dramatically in the near future.

I have several family members with severe ADHD and /or bi-polar disorder and/ or addiction issues. It runs in our family. At some point I'm sure they'll be able to test for it. You know what is a gigantic, exhausting, frustrating, rage inducing, drama filled, sorrowful, relationship ruining PITA? Being the parent or partner of someone with any/all of those conditions. But should persons with those conditions be terminated if those traits can be identified? Looking at the life of my son or my nephew or husband or any of my other family members who struggle, I'd give a big fat fuck no. Because they are valuable human beings who make the world much more entertaining and interesting ( if incredibly chaotic at times) .

You could say those particular conditions are less severe ( although living with addicts and their wreckage to themselves and others I might disagree) ....but where is the line? How about if the test shows that the fetus will likely develop Alzheimer's or cancer down the line? For all we know those could be completely preventable / curable by the time it comes up. Or the individual person might have a really great life until it sets in.

I am probably one of the least pro-choice people on here, but even I wouldn't argue that if you have the right to abort because it's at a bad time in your life, you shouldn't have the right to abort because the potential baby is in someway " damaged", that seems really hypocritical to me, but at some point I have to wonder where the line is in what makes a " good enough" human being.

[momof2treasures]

I will say this-you don't know the reality of parenting downs person or any other disability until you a have yourself been the parent of someone. I'm a nurse and I have been attacked by an elderly woman, a middle aged drug addict and a man detoxing of alcohol at work. None of them had Down's syndrome ....I am in fact pro choice but it bothers me to hear blanket statements about people with disabilities and their families. Who are you to say it's unfair for others to have be around them. Any person working with disabled folks is doing so willingly. I have always cared and valued my patients as human beings no matter what they were going through . As a mother , I do not regret for one second having my daughter who is, although medically involved, doing great. No test or dr could predict the future for her or our family.

[utter solitude]

I would say that someone who doesn't want to "deal" with _____, should not have to. If they choose to abort a child with x% chance of Downs or spinal problems or whatever, that's their choice. If they don't want to care for a child with a condition, it's their choice to make.

Now, would I do that? No. But that's also my choice. Would I advise someone to abort because of a probability of a "problem"? No. Someone who feels they couldn't/shouldn't/don't want to raise a child with any "disability" probably shouldn't be.

I'd wager that for some, it's not about a belief that someone with Downs can't have a great life and be a valuable person... it's about what they themselves can deal with or can't deal with. It's not a fight against whatever problem, it's a fight against raising someone with that problem. It's a very person choice either way. Whether I agree with it or not doesn't make much difference when it comes down to personal choice, which is exactly what it should come down to.

[GeoBQn]

Back to your question, I think Down Syndrome is more well known (most people probably went to school with one or more) and is able to be diagnosed in pregnancy. I don't know exactly what you mean by "not the worst" diagnosis; if I had to pick one or the other, I'd rather have a fetus with infantile Tay-Sachs; death is not the worst thing that can happen to a person.

You'd rather have a baby who is going to have a short life filled with nothing but pain, who will die a gruesome death before the age of 5?

[momof2treasures]

Really? You aren't a mother clearly. Death is pretty much the worst thing that can happen to a person.

[bea]

Speaking as someone who did terminate a pregnancy because of a fatal prenatal diagnosis (trisomy 13), I think Richard Dawkins can just STFU. My introduction to Yuku was a discussion board for women who'd had abortions due to poor or fatal prenatal diagnosis. What I learned from that group was that no one knows what they're going to do until they're faced with the decision. There are a million reasons people make the decisions they do, often based on already existing children, health risks, the availability of services where they live, money, personal morality, severity of the diagnosis, etc.

I had an abortion because I did not want to have a late-term miscarriage that might kill me or render me infertile. I also did not want to go through 40 weeks of pregnancy to give birth to a child whose life would be measured in minutes, at best. The thing is, with these decisions, there is no happy ending. There is only "what can I live with." I could live with an abortion at 15 weeks. I could not live with the alternative. So I had an abortion.

Also, I met hundreds of women from all over the world while I was a mod on that board, and NOT ONE had used the tri-screen, NT test, or any other "odds" giving test to make their decision. They had undergone a CVS, or an amnio, and they knew for sure. I had a CVS.

[utter solitude]

Speaking as someone who did terminate a pregnancy because of a fatal prenatal diagnosis (trisomy 13), I think Richard Dawkins can just STFU. My introduction to Yuku was a discussion board for women who'd had abortions due to poor or fatal prenatal diagnosis. What I learned from that group was that no one knows what they're going to do until they're faced with the decision. There are a million reasons people make the decisions they do, often based on already existing children, health risks, the availability of services where they live, money, personal morality, severity of the diagnosis, etc.

I had an abortion because I did not want to have a late-term miscarriage that might kill me or render me infertile. I also did not want to go through 40 weeks of pregnancy to give birth to a child whose life would be measured in minutes, at best. The thing is, with these decisions, there is no happy ending. There is only "what can I live with." I could live with an abortion at 15 weeks. I could not live with the alternative. So I had an abortion.

I am sorry you were faced with such a decision, but thank you for sharing it. I couldn't agree more with your point here.

I have had an abortion myself, but I was pushed into it, the father made it a point to remind me that I had serious heath issues and it would be unfair... blah blah. I made my own decision to do it. Now, I can sit here all day and proclaim that I will never do that again, and I mean it, but should the situation arise again, who knows what I'll do. What you believe you will do and what you end up doing are often two different things.

[2xx1xy1JD]

You'd rather have a baby who is going to have a short life filled with nothing but pain, who will die a gruesome death before the age of 5?

IFTR, I doubt you'd find many others with that opinion.

Tay Sachs isn't just death. It's having a child who shows no symptoms for the first few months, so if you don't know the diagnosis you think you have a perfectly healthy child. After a few months of heavy-duty bonding, just when babies hit the super-adorable phase, the symptoms start. There is no treatment or cure, just a guarantee that your child will continue to deteriorate and die before they reach age 5. The child becomes paralyzed, goes blind and deaf, experiences seizures, has difficulty swallowing, and is prone to infections like pneumonia.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Jewish people used to have a big problem with Tay Sachs, and they took care of that very efficiently, in my opinion. There is an organization called Dor Yeshorim ("upright generation") that:

{L_OFFTOPIC} :

is an organization that offers genetic screening to members of the worldwide Jewish community. Its objective is to minimize, and eventually eliminate, the incidence of genetic disorders common to Jewish people, such as Tay–Sachs disease.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews use a dating/courting system called "shidduchim" by which neither the boy nor the girl is allowed to ask the other out, instead a matchmaker suggests the match and if both agree they meet. Since around the 1970s when testing for carriers was invented, before going out, the boy and girl are tested and if both are carriers then the match is not made. Incidence of Tay-Sachs has since practically disappeared in these populations.

{L_OFFTOPIC} :

The success with Tay–Sachs disease has led Israel to become the first country that offers free genetic screening and counseling for all couples

Dor Yeshorim is used by ultra-Orthodox Jews, but genetic screening is recommended and used by ALL of the Jewish community. There were mass screenings done for Tay Sachs in the early 1970s.

[Grimalkin]

I did not know which post to quote but I have a sister who has severe Downs, and I worked with mentally handicapped adults ranging from severe and profound to mild. I loved my job and was and still am passionate about mentally handicapped people. I worked both in speech therapy to habilitation to get my clients to live as independently as possible.

It's true that not all DS people are like Corky from Life Goes On, but I have known very many that are. They go through all the same stages of growth we do. Moody adolescents, PMS hormones, old age. So someone might be grumpy sullen, and unpleasant in their teens may become a pleasant adult who is fun to be around. That man who beat up your aunt is rare, and it's possible he is not always angry and violent. Yes, most know they are different. I think about evey person I worked with learned to accept it. It's a grieving process, they go through stages and expierence life like we do,Have hopes and dreams, enjoy beauty, have a sense of humor, compassion,, can be stubborn as all heck, have strong opinions,be deeply spiritual, fall in love have broken hearts, get depressed learn to cope, flirt be a good friend argue, apologize, hold a grudge, and fogive.i don't think there is a problem about them having the ability to have a happy life ( which is just as dependent on who is raising them than it is for us). The question would be if someone was willing to put the work in. I realize they would never admit it but I think the overwhelming majority of families I worked with don't regret having thier kids and would do it again if given the choice. I think my dad would be the exception but he didn't want me either and left when I was a kid.

I think it would be like saying mentally ill people should be aborted or euthinized.Bi polar, schictzofrenics, manic depressive people all really suffer. We shouldn't put them through that kind of suffering, they would be better off dead.

I think it is important to add I have never had a client that lived in severe pain, and tested as less than a year mentally, though my sister is mentally a year to 14 months mentally, and one of the most severely handicapped people I know.

Also mentioning I am typing from my phone and can't be bothered to re edit.

[RachelB]

Speaking as someone who did terminate a pregnancy because of a fatal prenatal diagnosis (trisomy 13), I think Richard Dawkins can just STFU. My introduction to Yuku was a discussion board for women who'd had abortions due to poor or fatal prenatal diagnosis. What I learned from that group was that no one knows what they're going to do until they're faced with the decision. There are a million reasons people make the decisions they do, often based on already existing children, health risks, the availability of services where they live, money, personal morality, severity of the diagnosis, etc.

I had an abortion because I did not want to have a late-term miscarriage that might kill me or render me infertile. I also did not want to go through 40 weeks of pregnancy to give birth to a child whose life would be measured in minutes, at best. The thing is, with these decisions, there is no happy ending. There is only "what can I live with." I could live with an abortion at 15 weeks. I could not live with the alternative. So I had an abortion.

Also, I met hundreds of women from all over the world while I was a mod on that board, and NOT ONE had used the tri-screen, NT test, or any other "odds" giving test to make their decision. They had undergone a CVS, or an amnio, and they knew for sure. I had a CVS.

*nods*

*offers hand-squeeze of commiseration*

My reason for being quite so angry with Dawkins is that I don't think most people faced with such a decision make it lightly, regardless of whether they carry their pregnancies to full term or not. It's not his business, any more than it's the business of people protesting outside a clinic.

[Mama Mia]

IFTR, I doubt you'd find many others with that opinion.

Tay Sachs isn't just death. It's having a child who shows no symptoms for the first few months, so if you don't know the diagnosis you think you have a perfectly healthy child. After a few months of heavy-duty bonding, just when babies hit the super-adorable phase, the symptoms start. There is no treatment or cure, just a guarantee that your child will continue to deteriorate and die before they reach age 5. The child becomes paralyzed, goes blind and deaf, experiences seizures, has difficulty swallowing, and is prone to infections like pneumonia.

Something that really bugs me is the way death tends to be romanticized. Unless someone is

90 ++and dies in their sleep, peacefully, at-home---death by natural causes is generally some combination of painful, drawn out, messy, and ugly. If it's a sudden death due to a massive coronary or aneurism- it will be quick for the person-- but a huge shock for everyone around them. Most of the time it isn't like a t.v. Movie, where the soon to die person is peacefully saying their goodbyes.

[RosyDaisy]

Something that really bugs me is the way death tends to be romanticized. Unless someone is

90 ++and dies in their sleep, peacefully, at-home---death by natural causes is generally some combination of painful, drawn out, messy, and ugly. If it's a sudden death due to a massive coronary or aneurism- it will be quick for the person-- but a huge shock for everyone around them. Most of the time it isn't like a t.v. Movie, where the soon to die person is peacefully saying their goodbyes.

Nothing about death is romantic. My mother suffered for years. My grandmother died quickly. Both deaths shook me to my core. Sudden or not, the shock is still there, the pain is still there, and it never goes away. You just learn to cope, and it's never easy.

[It'sFunToRun]

So then where do you draw the line? Right now there are a limited number of specific conditions that can be tested for, but that will likely increase dramatically in the near future.

I have several family members with severe ADHD and /or bi-polar disorder and/ or addiction issues. It runs in our family. At some point I'm sure they'll be able to test for it. You know what is a gigantic, exhausting, frustrating, rage inducing, drama filled, sorrowful, relationship ruining PITA? Being the parent or partner of someone with any/all of those conditions. But should persons with those conditions be terminated if those traits can be identified? Looking at the life of my son or my nephew or husband or any of my other family members who struggle, I'd give a big fat *** no. Because they are valuable human beings who make the world much more entertaining and interesting ( if incredibly chaotic at times) .

You could say those particular conditions are less severe ( although living with addicts and their wreckage to themselves and others I might disagree) ....but where is the line? How about if the test shows that the fetus will likely develop Alzheimer's or cancer down the line? For all we know those could be completely preventable / curable by the time it comes up. Or the individual person might have a really great life until it sets in.

I am probably one of the least pro-choice people on here, but even I wouldn't argue that if you have the right to abort because it's at a bad time in your life, you shouldn't have the right to abort because the potential baby is in someway " damaged", that seems really hypocritical to me, but at some point I have to wonder where the line is in what makes a " good enough" human being.

That's a good question, and I think the answer is that each woman needs to decide for herself where she wants to draw the line. I grew up in a moderate (no protesting outside clinics or nonsense like that) pro-life home, and the reason I became pro-choice around age 12 or 13 was that we had a few kids who I'm-not-allowed-to-properly-describe-on-this-forum in my school, and I was thinking that I would want to abort them.

My first immature reaction was to think "okay, it should be allowed to abort this kind of fetus, but not all others.", and I think went with that for a few months and was happy, until I started thinking that I might also want to abort a fetus if I knew it would be blind (no offense to blind people who are sometimes really cool!). I thought I probably wouldn't want to abort a fetus who would be deaf, and then I found myself confused, because why would it be morally okay to abort a blind fetus but not a deaf one?

Why should I have the right to decide which fetuses can be aborted and which ones can't? I think we had discussed blind vs deaf in school or something, and I remembered there were a few people who said they'd rather be blind than deaf (btw, Hellen Keller said that too), so presumably they'd rather have blind children than deaf ones, and why should I get to decide for everyone? Anyway, shortly after that I became pro-choice.

[It'sFunToRun]

IFTR, I doubt you'd find many others with that opinion.

Tay Sachs isn't just death. It's having a child who shows no symptoms for the first few months, so if you don't know the diagnosis you think you have a perfectly healthy child. After a few months of heavy-duty bonding, just when babies hit the super-adorable phase, the symptoms start. There is no treatment or cure, just a guarantee that your child will continue to deteriorate and die before they reach age 5. The child becomes paralyzed, goes blind and deaf, experiences seizures, has difficulty swallowing, and is prone to infections like pneumonia.

As soul-destroying as Tay Sachs is, you don't know how I feel about "redacted" people. I went to school with a few of them who couldn't talk, walk, or communicate in any way. They sat in their wheelchairs and got pushed around everywhere so their parents could pretend they were a normal kid going to school. They drooled all over themselves, pooped all over themselves and occasionally made weird moaning noises. Apparently they could swallow food, but it would have to be baby food spooned into their mouths by their helper because they were to stupid to bring food to their own mouths or chew. If I were their parents, I would prefer that they also couldn't swallow food, if you know what I mean.

[JHeathen]

I would say that someone who doesn't want to "deal" with _____, should not have to. If they choose to abort a child with x% chance of Downs or spinal problems or whatever, that's their choice. If they don't want to care for a child with a condition, it's their choice to make.

Now, would I do that? No. But that's also my choice. Would I advise someone to abort because of a probability of a "problem"? No. Someone who feels they couldn't/shouldn't/don't want to raise a child with any "disability" probably shouldn't be.

I'd wager that for some, it's not about a belief that someone with Downs can't have a great life and be a valuable person... it's about what they themselves can deal with or can't deal with. It's not a fight against whatever problem, it's a fight against raising someone with that problem. It's a very person choice either way. Whether I agree with it or not doesn't make much difference when it comes down to personal choice, which is exactly what it should come down to.

Yes, this. I had CVS with both pregnancies. No problems with either. We knew we would definitely abort if Downs was an issue, because I was 38 & 41 during my pregnancies and my husband is 5 yrs older. We did not think it would be fair to bring a kid into the world who would need us possibly longer than we could give. If that makes sense. And if it doesn't make sense to you, we'll, it wasn't your choice, so no worries.

[Rescinded and Mended]

Something that really bugs me is the way death tends to be romanticized. Unless someone is

90 ++and dies in their sleep, peacefully, at-home---death by natural causes is generally some combination of painful, drawn out, messy, and ugly. If it's a sudden death due to a massive coronary or aneurism- it will be quick for the person-- but a huge shock for everyone around them. Most of the time it isn't like a t.v. Movie, where the soon to die person is peacefully saying their goodbyes.

All of the bolded, exactly. Years ago, my father died of a heart attack. Doctors estimated at the time that he was gone before he could even hit the floor.

Looking back, as much as it hurt losing him, and especially taking into consideration everything I have seen regarding cancer in my life, at least he went quickly. He didn't have to suffer long. This actually brings me some comfort nowadays.

[Grimalkin]

All of the bolded, exactly. Years ago, my father died of a heart attack. Doctors estimated at the time that he was gone before he could even hit the floor.

Looking back, as much as it hurt losing him, and especially taking into consideration everything I have seen regarding cancer in my life, at least he went quickly. He didn't have to suffer long. This actually brings me some comfort nowadays.

I hear you. We took care of my Great Uncle in the last stages of Alzheimer's when I was a kid and it was aweful. We were trying to get him in someplace becuase we just could not give him the care he needed. My mom has early stages of Alzheimer's now and it breaks my heart. Her GP made a comment like if we are lucky we go in our sleep or something and it upset my mom, but I understood his meaning. It is very hard to help maintain a persons dignity in these situations.

[Maggie Mae]

Really? You aren't a mother clearly. Death is pretty much the worst thing that can happen to a person.

Not necessarily. Everyone is going to die someday. It's inevitable. I would say that a life devoid of purpose, lonely, suffering, possibly in pain for 80 years is much worse. Now I realize that within the context of this discussion, my preceding statement could be offensive. To clarify, I'm speaking of people of all walks of life, disabled or not, downs or not. Death is the end. But for some people, death could be welcome.

And I have no idea how being a mother makes one qualified to talk about death, considering that none of us have died and yet someday we all will.

[momof2treasures]

This was in response to the person who said they would rather have a child with Tay Sachs disease than Down's syndrome because "death isn't the worse thing that could happen" in her words. When your talking about your child, death usually is the worst thing that could happen. I was simply stating that Down's syndrome isn't the worst diagnosis you can receive .I fully agree that death could be a welcome end to a long battle with cancer or ms.some are ready to go at 80 or 90 after dealing with pain and chronic disease for a decade after a life long lived. Enlighten me if I am wrong.

[utter solitude]

As soul-destroying as Tay Sachs is, you don't know how I feel about "redacted" people. I went to school with a few of them who couldn't talk, walk, or communicate in any way. They sat in their wheelchairs and got pushed around everywhere so their parents could pretend they were a normal kid going to school. They drooled all over themselves, pooped all over themselves and occasionally made weird moaning noises. Apparently they could swallow food, but it would have to be baby food spooned into their mouths by their helper because they were to stupid to bring food to their own mouths or chew. If I were their parents, I would prefer that they also couldn't swallow food, if you know what I mean.

"Mentally handicapped". That's the phrase you're avoiding. It's like you're trying to draw attention to the fact that a whole new rule had to be made because of you, and I have no idea why you'd want to do that. There are neutral words to use for what you're describing, not just the slur you made a huge thing about.

That aside, your position is.... extreme, but similar to my own. XD

What would you do if you used all the available testing, but ended up with a severely mentally challenged child? One that would require round the clock care?

[utter solitude]

This was in response to the person who said they would rather have a child with Tay Sachs disease than Down's syndrome because "death isn't the worse thing that could happen" in her words. When your talking about your child, death usually is the worst thing that could happen. I was simply stating that Down's syndrome isn't the worst diagnosis you can receive .I fully agree that death could be a welcome end to a long battle with cancer or ms.some are ready to go at 80 or 90 after dealing with pain and chronic disease for a decade after a life long lived. Enlighten me if I am wrong.

I have to disagree. I'd rather let my hypothetical child go than watch them suffer in a life that is not a life. However I can certainly understand the other side. A life should be lived, and it's hard to let go of your child, even if you know it's coming.

[2xx1xy1JD]

As soul-destroying as Tay Sachs is, you don't know how I feel about "redacted" people. I went to school with a few of them who couldn't talk, walk, or communicate in any way. They sat in their wheelchairs and got pushed around everywhere so their parents could pretend they were a normal kid going to school. They drooled all over themselves, pooped all over themselves and occasionally made weird moaning noises. Apparently they could swallow food, but it would have to be baby food spooned into their mouths by their helper because they were to stupid to bring food to their own mouths or chew. If I were their parents, I would prefer that they also couldn't swallow food, if you know what I mean.

I'm sorry that you had early traumatic experiences or issues that prevent you from seeing people with developmental disabilities as human beings worthy of basic rights and respect and decent treatment. You obviously have strong feelings. If you find that they interfere with your life, you may be able to get some sort of counseling for that.

Our feelings, however strong or unpleasant they may be, don't give us a free pass to limit the rights of others or treat other people like crap.