I guess it is a child.
Jun 8th, 2008 by David Anderson
This baby must have a purpose for being. This child survived an abortion attempt on his life at eight weeks. By the grace of God, he is expected to live a normal life. It reminds us that we are talking about real human beings not abstract choices. It is a child not a choice is more than a cliche.
This story shows how some prey on the fears of mothers to achieve an eugenic outcome. Her first son died soon after birth. Even though her second son has a normal life with one kidney, she was made to fear the third pregnancy. Where is the counseling and practical support? Why should that family have feared facing this difficult situation of a possible life threatening defect in their child alone? We have to do a better job supporting one another in society. Then we will be better able to bring out the best in each other and celebrate every life for its value whether handicapped or not.
The world can do better than abortion. In my opinion, a society based upon human dignity can not endorse something so barbaric. This incident reminds us that even though you make a choice to deny the humanity of the unborn child, you can not change the reality of the humanity of the unborn child. This is why I shall never wavier in giving a voice for the silent scream of the pre-born. Every human being has the cries of the heart; the most basic one is “I want to live”.
Thanks for bringing up that story. Believe it or not, it is not that uncommon for babies to survive abortion. Here is one of my favorite stories. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1649018/posts
http://www.giannajessen.com/
Destruction of the family unit (to be replaced by the state) is a clearly-stated goal of Marxism. Hence, the left embraces abortion (usually citing the ‘health’ of the mother). The ultimate goal is unfettered and inconsequential sexual promiscuity; and if one looks at statistics, the Marxist dream of the end of the family is approaching rapidly.
Absurd, Rick! Who talks like this but you?
The family unit in America has been deteriorating for a large number of years independent of which party or which political philosophy has prevailed. I suspect we can all agree on that.
The reasons are so complex that even the experts do not agree.
That said, I believe that poverty and racism have played a dominant roll. People with little to no chance, with little to no education, with little to no hope, get desperate in their behavior. That’s not an excuse, it’s a possible explanation based on observation.
It is apparent that poverty at its worst breeds huge growth in population in certain regions of the globe.
So the deterioration of the family has nothing to do with your buzzword “Marxism”, but everything to do with neglect, neglect by those of us born with a silver spoon who should know better.
To attack the problem, it seems that you want big government to step in to outlaw abortion. It’s not that you conservatives are against big government, you are for it as long as it achieves your arbitrary goals. Bush and the neocons are the latest example of this degeneracy.
I, and many others, are pro-life, speak out against abortion, nevertheless recognize the woman’s right to choose. We speak out against war too. You, Rick, would take that right of choice from women. That’s wrong, in my view; that’s big government at its worst!!! Instead, let us make it easier for these women to carry full term, then place their child for adoption. Government can help in this way!
Are you saying that the destruction was not advocated by Marx? Are you saying that the hard-left doesn’t subscribe to Marxism? Allowing children to boss around their parents, Hollywood garbage, multiculturalist and sex-ed oriented schools, anti-military fervor and the homosexual agenda are all part of the leftist/Socialist-Democrat package, starting with Wilson, then greatly expanded under FDR and LBJ. Not that FDR and LBJ knew what they were doing, but their intellectual ‘advisors’ certainly did; proponents of the philosophy of Rousseau, Marx, James, Dewey, Sorel and Heidegger, elitists who dominate academia. This pernicious trend here in America is similar to what spawned Hitler; don’t be shocked if it happens again.
Rick,
It would be fascinating to make Rousseau a Marxist–him being dead and all at the time of the writing of Das Kapital.
I must have missed the part of history where WW advocated sex-ed oriented schools, where FDR expressed anti-military fervor, and where LBJ stuck up for children bossing around their parents.
Oh, that’s right: it never happened.
Do you even understand the difference between Marxists and Social Democrats? And what exactly (I know I’ll hate myself in the morning for asking this) spawned Hitler? Bisexual love affairs in Weimar Germany?
The point being: when you do the name-dropping rant thing, it really helps to have some idea about the reality behind your pseudo-history; otherwise it just looks like you cut and pasted a lot of crap off some nutjob web site.
Gee, guys, why don’t you give me a call the next time you miss your period and we’ll have an honest discussion about choice. Until then, you can’t possibly know what it means to be faced with that decision. I know, I know, you have a right to your beliefs. That’s all well and good, just keep your beliefs, your religion and your moral compass out of my doctor’s office. Unless and until our government can GUARANTEE that every man who impregnates a woman will be a present, loving, emotionally- AND financially-supportive father, the abortion issue should be off the table.
“Unless and until our government can GUARANTEE that every man who impregnates a woman will be a present, loving, emotionally- AND financially-supportive father, the abortion issue should be off the table.”
There are more than enough loving fathers out there to adopt those babies, and we didn’t need the government to find them. Even if those couples were not there to adopt, a baby’s right to live is not dependant upon whether or not it is wanted. A life is a life. period. Abortion is on the table!
“Gee, guys, why don’t you give me a call the next time you miss your period and we’ll have an honest discussion about choice.”
So we have to wait for all the fathers to be around to bring abortion to the table? But we aren’t to be taken seriously because we are men?? Either men are part of the picture or they are not. Make up your mind.
Jordan
You have every right to keep any issue on the table, but let’s be extremely careful when throwing around unsubstantiated assertions.
“There are more than enough loving fathers out there to adopt those babies, and we didn’t need the government to find them.”
Agreed that we should move the government out of the adoption business to the smallest regulatory role necessary to prevent fraud and trafficking in human infants. . . .
But there are millions of babies born each year who stand virtually no chance whatever at adoption in this country, because they are born crack-addicted, with birth defects, come in sibling groups that don’t want to be broken up, or just happen to be African-American (the statistically least desirable demographic group to adopt over the past three decades).
Moreover, as much as I reject government paternalism, experience tells me that tens of thousands of people who think they’d make loving adoptive parents don’t have a freaking clue what they’re letting themselves in for. Raising adopted children (even when you have them within 72 hours or less of birth) is a completely different proposition than raising children by birth; raising adoptive children with special needs or from a different ethnic group is an even greater challenge. Do you know that thousands of would-be adoptive parents of children like these go to court each year to send them back, in what are euphemistically known as “failed adoptions”?
(And yes, before anybody asks, I speak from personal experience, having adopted a child with disabilities out of state custody.)
My point: simply saying, “There are people willing to adopt these babies” is not an answer to the question of abortion rights (and yes, I do recognize that you added a second philosophical objection).
I hate abortion. But I am a staunch supporter of women’s abortion rights (and I refuse to equivocate with that “pro-Choice” euphemism) because the State has no more business regulating what they do with their bodies than it does enforcing sterilization of men who father too many children, and because we are not (yet!) a society wherein no child can be described as “unwanted.”
I’ll repeat myself anyways, even if those couples were not there to adopt, a baby’s right to live is not dependant upon whether or not it is wanted. And it is not dependant on what that babies life might be like.
You can look at those little fingers and toes, that little beating heart, that unique genetic code, the little hickups, and tell me that the government should stay out of it. But if there is no moral underpinnings to defend the defenceless, your libertarianism is just a step toward choas and anarchy.
Here is a site to put a little perspective to this. http://www.justthefacts.org
I’m not interest in some big argument. I just think that you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you know what I mean.
Jordan, we have been over this before, but you are closed-minded on this topic.
You come forward with your emotional approach, which is fine, but unconvincing to some folks. You need to recognize that fact.
Next time you get a moment, look up the word baby. We are talking about a foetus held within the body of a pregnant woman. Am I correct, Jordan? So let’s stick to correct word usage from now on in this debate.
You also want the government to take ‘choice’ away from a pregnant woman. Simultaneously, you wish to diminish the rights of a woman to choose and elevate the rights of a foetus to live. That’s appealing, but wrong.
It’s wrong for reasons just stated so eloquently by the complementary perspectives of Steve and Dominique.
So instead of further arguing this point, you would do more good by volunteering to help facilitate adoptions. When will you do that, Jordan?
He should be closed minded to ripping a baby limb from limb. I was just reading about a baby born twice. The baby was birthed to operate on her to remove a tumor around 6 months into the pregnancy then placed back in the womb. The baby was born normally later. Which time was the baby worthy of protection? Did the baby have more rights than others at the same age because she was born before? Same child, the location of the child has no effects on its human rights.
There is no scientific debate any longer on this issue. Are you sure Jordan is the one with a closed mind my friend?
Steve considering that 47 million of our adults and children are unwanted as defined by their economic capacity of expression in the market, (and the number may be much higher) I would say we have serious issues in making children or adults wanted in our society.
Steve Newton, first let me say thank you for giving of yourself to adopt a child with special needs. My wife and I did not adopt anyone but took care of a child with special needs as guardians for an extended period. My brother and sister in law adopted and also took care of foster children including one so disabled by abuse she was left in a near vegetative state for a couple of years until she passed. I hate to get into personal stuff because I don’t think that qualifies or disqualifies one in the debate, but it does give me a basis for giving my opinion on the question you raised.
I don’t believe that “Raising adopted children (even when you have them within 72 hours or less of birth) is a completely different proposition than raising children by birth”. There are differences with how you deal with certain aspects, especially when you deal with older children, but fundamentally the four of us found it is the same. I would encourage anyone who has the desire to have children to look at adoption or foster care. I am sure you would agree that it is one of the most rewarding activities you could engage in.
Adoption is to be prefered over abortion.
“Jordan, we have been over this before, but you are closed-minded on this topic.”
Before, we were much more respectful of each other. For the record, I have contributed my own hard earned money to help my friends afford to adopt. Adoption is important to me. So you can stop digging for something to attack me with.
“Steve Newton, first let me say thank you for giving of yourself to adopt a child with special needs.”
I’ll second that. Steve, I respect you, I just disagree with you.
Jordan, when you misuse words purposely, you deserve to be called on it. If you consider that a personal attack, I accept that as your perception, unintended by me however.
That you facilitated an adoption process is a good thing, the very best approach, I think, to this most difficult problem. Taking away a woman’s choice is not the best approach, in my view, for reasons already stated.
BTW Jordan, I had the privilege of meeting Ms. Jessen. She is a truly amazing individual. I didn’t say thanks for posting the link, but I will now. I hope everyone reads her story before this post is forgotten. She is a CerebalPalsey survivor who now does marathons to raise awareness for the disease. They said she would never crawl let alone do marathons. She got CP because of complications from a late term abortion. She is a great singer, a great activist, a wonderful inspirational speaker.
No matter what side of this issue you are on, she will inspire you.