|
|
|
January 21, 2005 The Right to Be Earlier this week "The Oprah Winfrey Show" (AKA the Oracle of God) highlighted a case of a single, 38-year-old woman whose invetro fertilization didn't go as planned and she ended up pregnant with quadruplets. Unable to raise four children on her limited income, she faced pressure to use "selective reduction" (also known as playing God) to eliminate two of her children. She decided against it, and couldn't bear to go through adoption process either. Many critics "Left" and "Right" contended that the children had the "right" not to be born into a life where their mother couldn't provide for them. Americans never cease to amaze me. I am often unable to reconcile how our society picks and chooses where and when it wants to think logically about how we ought to treat unborn babies. Check out the latest happenings in an Oregon State Superior Court: Shawnna J. Hughes, 27, was headed for a routine divorce late last year from her husband, Carlos, who had spent time in jail for beating her.Do mine eyes deceive me? Did the judge really include in his decision the phrase, "the right to be born"? Why yes he did. Very well then, let's build from there. Based on growing evidence that an unborn child of at least 20 weeks has the necessary physical structures to feel pain, state Sen. Mike Foley has sponsored a bill requiring that women who seek late-term abortion are automatically given information asking them if they'd like their child to be anesthetized. The Lincoln Journal Star reports: The bill is modeled after the federal "fetal pain awareness act" that has been introduced in Congress. It requires that women seeking an abortion have information that the abortion procedure will cause pain to the unborn child, he said.If I were of the pro-choice persuasion, I'd request that Planned Parenthood's representatives keep their collective mouths off my argument. Quite simply, they lack credibility. The opposition to such a bill is rather telling because scientific proof or not, what would be the harm in offering a mother the opportunity to spare her child from additional pain? The harm would be that we'd have to acknowledge that the "fetus" was a real person and that mother would have just one more opportunity to reconcile her actions. You may recall last April when President Bush signed the "Fetus Rights Bill" -- a bill which Sen. John "Compassionate Catholic" Kerry voted against -- requiring that the federal crimes of violence against a pregnant woman be acknowledged as two victims and two offenses when appropriate. This is one of the many moves President Bush made during his presidency to push a platform that was not in favor of child genocide. At the time, Bush invoked the case of Laci and Scott Peterson. Since then, Scott Peterson was convicted on two counts of murder and sentenced to death. These are all sweeping indications that this country feels a child has a right not to die, not to be born into poverty, and not to be born to divorcing parents. Tell me, how do we reconcile it all? Comments Posted by: marcus at January 21, 2005 2:04 PM I'm torn. I don't know if I like the idea of the government forcing the lady to stay married. (divorce, of course, should be avoided - if possible) I agree with everything else you said. Posted by: Steven J. Kelso Sr. at January 21, 2005 3:04 PM Almost 36 years ago, I became pregnant. I was 16 years old, almost 17. Abortion wasn't legal then, but that didn't matter. Gynecologists came out of the woodwork offering to kill my child. I couldn't do it, couldn't even think of it. I checked into a maternity home and even though it hurt me deeply, I gave my baby girl up for adoption. She ended up with a great family and a great life, none of which she would have gotten had I listened to the doctors, or to her father, or to my father, all of whom were panting for me to kill (ooops excuse me, abort) her. I don't understand the backbone, rather, lack of it, of women and girls who get abortions because they are pressured into it by their fathers, husbands, boyfriends, or (egads!) Planned Parenthood in conjunction with all of the above. I seriously doubt if less than 90% of abortions are truly a "woman's choice" and not the choice of their boyfriend, mother, father, or whomever who said they would disown her unless she did that. If any of the above acted excited about the pregnancy and took responsibility, duh, would she have gone through abortion?????? Just a thought. Thanks Ambra for letting me sound off here. Posted by: Sherry at January 21, 2005 9:04 PM "...the information about a fetus feeling pain is political rather than factual." Yes, much like the Gulag. This is kind of embarrasing, but I thought pain was the most personal of realities, but I clearly had the wrong end of the cause and effect stick. Posted by: Philip at January 21, 2005 10:54 PM Let's go back to the beginning, shall we? She CHOSE to get pregnant. She CHOSE to have a child, and got a four-for-one deal in the end. And what's Oprah's take on this? Does she offer to help keep mother and children together by offering up a cent or two from her vast, but childless fortunes. Nooooo. So which one of these two do we slap first with a loaded diaper? Posted by: James C. Hess at January 22, 2005 4:29 PM Every child has the right to come into existence in the warmth and safety of her mother's womb, with her father nearby, bound to her mother in marriage, providing a protective embrace, Anyone who denies this right to a child is committing a terrible crime. Posted by: BillyHW at January 22, 2005 5:44 PM Does anyone know what Oprah's religious beliefs are, if any? Posted by: BillyHW at January 22, 2005 9:59 PM Oprah's religious beliefs are vague. Probably a mix between Southern Baptist (because every black person from 1965 and earlier was raised Baptist) and New Age Spirituality. She talks a lot of that "whoever your higher power is" type stuff. Posted by: Ambra Nykol at January 23, 2005 12:18 AM Is justice really done here? Shawnna Hughes is on public assistance. As a result, the state can collect child support from the divorced father of her children. that naming another father threatened the state's ability to collect child support. Think NOT! He IS responsible for HIS kids, but don't see it for HER behavior..
Posted by: JimBob at January 23, 2005 9:09 AM God bless you Sherry. You will receive a special reward of joy in heaven. Please keep telling your story so that other potential mothers can know that life is a choice worth taking. Judge Bastine is a real humdinger, and typical of the problem with the judicial system: judges should stick to applying the law and let legislators make the law. "The paramount right of the state and the obligation of the court, and in fact, probably the obligation of the parent as well, is to protect the legitimacy, the appropriateness of the child's relationship to his or her parents," Bastine said during a hearing in November.This has to be one of the biggest crocks of #$*& I've heard recently. If this is true then it should be a criminal offense to have a child out of wedlock, and perhaps even to grant a divorce while children are still minors. The only obligation the state has is to the safety of the child, to protect the defenseless. I suppose if we took that to its logical end then abortion would be legal. Yeah. Posted by: MarcV at January 24, 2005 5:02 AM Excellent insight. It is so sad what fetuses have to go through just to be born in this free society! Posted by: tina bayne at January 30, 2005 2:33 PM Please check the sites dedicated to online poker online poker http://online-poker.terashells.com/ Posted by: online poker at February 8, 2005 12:31 AM |
 "...playful philosophizing" Dan Leroy, National Review Online
|
|||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Good post. That ninny from Planned Parenthood claims we're trying to "chip away at reproduction rights". The way I see it, "reproductive rights" begin and end with the "choice" to keep your stinkin' pants zipped. People want to be able to fornicate with no bad consequences or responsibility. Sorry, Charlie, it just don't work that way (Gal. 6:7)