Monday, April 04, 2005

Some people's love we can do without....

I'm still too sick at heart to pull together something poignant and pithy. But I'm struck with the parallels between Michael Schiavo and Sherri Finkbine.

In both cases, we have a "loving" family member campaigning, with great public sympathy, to have a helpless person put to death -- a person that ordinarily they'd have a duty to love and protect.

The link I found to the Finkbine story is particularly grating because there she is, having just killed her baby with worldwide fanfare -- and she's grinning like the cat that ate the canary. She got what she wanted -- that crippled fetus was killed, and she was the darling of all right-thinking people, of the literati, of the press. Why not smile?

Yes, there was an outraged outcry by some folks. But Finkbine came out smelling like roses. She paved the way not only for abortion of disabled babies, but for abortion-on-demand. Sherri Finkbine, more than any other individual, normalized abortion. She made it something a cute, perky, respectable mom could pursue without seeming shallow or selfish. Because, after all, she wanted to rid the world of something unsightly, of a reminder of our human frailty, of one of those "thalidomide babies" we'd all grown weary of seeing.

I'm wondering if Michael Schiavo has done the same thing for euthanasia -- if he has turned killing your disabled spouse into a respectable, mainstream activity.


Anonymous said...

A few of points here:

1. Both my wife and I are against abortions,but...
2. Bob Finkbine was my freshman year history teacher at Arcadia High in Phoenix (not Scottsdale..was part of Scottsdale Public Schools). This poor couple went thru absolute hell with this whole mess and I, for one, can see how and why they had to do this.
3. The picture shown: Uh, it was taken at Arcadia High and NOT London, folks. Here's why I can tell: Bob, in his own way to make a statement to students (including me!) cut his tie in half with pinking shears and used a large paper clip as a tie clip. He ONLY wore this gettup at work........meaning at Arcadia! You can see the "clipped" tie in the photo.

Sorry to rain on what otherwise is a decent parade but this particular article is fraught with falsehoods. The portrayal as described is absolutely ludicrous!

BTW: Their baby had no legs nor one arm. Nor would the baby have lived beyond one day. Bob, at least, was never the same person after this tragedy.

Bottom line, folks: IF you're gonna try to end the abortion travesty, make sure (as in POSITIVE) that you have all your facts correct and NOT make up stories!

Christina Dunigan said...

Jere, fault the sources. I took what's out there.

And thalidomide caused limb reductions. Being missing limbs or parts of limbs isn't a life-threatening problem.

Sherri CHOSE to make herself the poster child for putting babies with disabilities to death. She could have killed her baby quietly at home and gone about her business. But she wouldn't be content with that. She had to go public and announce that disabled babies universally deserve death. Any public flac that brings down on her and her family is of her own choosing.

People with disabilities have just as much right to live as anybody else. Just because they make some people uncomfortable is no reason to kill them.

Anonymous said...

You're dead wrong on this one! First, Sherri was "forced" into exposing this all when she had to go public. Second (and most importantly!) there were no pro or anti-abortion factions in 1962!! I was there and I literally SAW what was going on within that family......and it wasn't pretty. Sherri and Bob took the only route they knew of at that time.

Now IF you were actually there and present at that time (between December of 1961 and about September of 1962, actually knew the family in question and were actually there to see what transpired, then you might have some wiggle room on this. I doubt very seriously that you were.

BTW: Judging from your photo, I seriously doubt that you were even thought of in that era.

Don't rely on "what's out there" on the internet as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth: Joe Friday, Dragnet.

And the last part of your latest post is soooo far off that its simply astounding! I refer back to the second paragraph in this response.

One last thing: My nephew's first boy was born sans both legs and a lot of internal organs (the same as Sherri's baby). This was in 1995 as I remember, therefore not part of the thalidomide "mess". The baby lived just about 24 hours.

The point I'm getting at is simply to make sure your comments are, in deed, factual. If you can't be positive, then don't comment. All you are doing is harming a cause that is most certainly worthwhile. If you want to go aiming at someone, try the pharmaceutical companies.

I want it completely understood that my wife, like you, detest abortion. But mis-representing facts will most likely cause more damage to "our side" than not. And simply saying (and I quote): "...fault the sources. I took what's out there." is a rather poor excuse, don't you think?

I rest my case!

Christina Dunigan said...

Then you need to find fault with the entire coverage of the case from day one. You can start here and follow the links to their sources and fault them, one by one, for getting it all wrong.

Here's the BBC story

Go to Time and fault them.

Fault coverage for the past fifty years. I came here late in the game, after the Finkbines had done so much to establish that disabled babies deserve death. That even babies that only MIGHT be disabled deserve death. That nice, wholesome families naturally choose death for unsightly children.

And where do you get that Thalidomide is associated with lethal birth defects? Everything I've ever seen linked it with limb reduction.

Anonymous said...

Oh, here we go again, lady.

Are you aware that almost every comment you describe came from the Arizona Republic..........the people who started this whole mess off in the first place?! GAD, do your homework! I stated before that you might not want to rely on everything you read on the internet. Since the internet wasn't around in 1962 you might want to add "newspapers" and "magazines". Ever heard the term "yellow journalism"? This is a great example. And I again state that the picture shown was, in fact, taken at Arcadia High School......I think at Christmas of 1961. Check the yearbook!

Second, you made quite a statement previously. Something to the effect that (and I quote you again!): "She could have killed her baby quietly at home and gone about her business."

Madam, that's simply outrageous! I cannot believe your are anti-abortion and can come up with a statement such as that.

Sherri and Bob were forced into all of this by the Arizona Republic. And in the end they both lost their jobs and were basically railroaded....

Again, you were NOT there, I WAS. All I was trying to do was set the record straight on this particular discussion.

My guess is that you would like to hammer and yammer this issue to death but re-read what I've written

I have absolutely nothing more to say on this subject might just wanna remove this portion of your blog.

OFF soapbox!

Christina Dunigan said...

Jere -- Okay, let's hear the story. How was it that the Arizona Republic was the instigator here? I'm VERY MUCH listening.

Anonymous said...

You know, I guess I'm gonna have to draw you a picture and that's about all I'm gonna do here:

Chronology: First, Bob Finkbine came home from Europe with sleeping pills (contained thalidomide). She got pregnant and at some point she couldn't sleep and he gave her some of his pills. She went in for an exam and they found out the baby was deformed. Then they found out why.....the thalidomide. It was the hospital/doctors that basically insisted that she should have an abortion. At that time it required court action to allow such a procedure. Somehow the AZ Republic got involved in the story and ran with it simply because she was "Miss Sherri" from the local Romper Room. The whole situation, by then, was completely out of the Finkbine's control..........they was damned if they did and damned if they didn't. From the original AZ Republic story it went national and then international. Pretty much everyone in those days considered abortion only as a last resort. And no one at the time knew enough about the chemical (as in thalidomide) to make any judgments on what was "safe" and what wasn't.

Now I want you to think about this. All the stories you read have just about the same wording. I can guarantee you that I was "near" the epicenter of this was the Arizona motive at the time was the fact that my teacher couldn't teach me, and he was a darned good teacher! The Arizona Republic's motive was the Almighty Buck, period, end of story. Moreover, the story has snowballed from that point some 48 years ago. Most certainly neither Time magazine nor the BBC were anywhere around "where the action was" and relied on spun stories by the Republic and innuendo. You certainly were not there to know one way or another.

Now IF you choose to keep pressing the issue, go right ahead, madam. I will simply see if I can contact either the Finkbines, if they are still alive, or their heirs and they can deal with you.

I highly suggest at this point that you seek good legal counsel for your current position as the fact is that if you wish to continue that my guess is that you will be litigated against. They may want to at this point in any event if they know you are "out there".

You may have the right to free speech but you do NOT have the right to either slander or libel people. You have NO proof other than old stories of which have just been debunked.

The short answer to you latest question is: The Arizona Republic was in it for the money!

My final comment to you is: If you seem to think that Sherri Finkbine should have gone home and killed her baby all by herself then you are as guilty as you believe she is.

End of subject as I will not longer waste my time on you.

Christina Dunigan said...

So far what you're saying coincides with the "common knowldge" about the story on these points -- if I'm hearing you correctly:

1. Bob brought the thalidomide home from a trip to Europe.
2. Sherri took it as a sleeping pill/tranquilizer when pregnant
3. The doctor/hospital first suggested abortion
4. The story broke in the "Arizona Republic"

The biggest differences:

1. You say that the doctors first discovered that the baby was deformed, THEN traced the source as the thalidomide. All the other sources indicate that Sherri went to the doctor and told him she'd taken the thalidomide, and the doctor made his prognosis about this causing the baby to be deformed, based on the cases in Europe that were in the medical journals.

2. You say that the newspaper somehow got wind of the planned abortion; the other sources indicate that Sherri initially contacted them with the intent of warning other women not to take thalidomide.

Am I hearing you correctly?

Anonymous said...

A: You were not there (How many times do I have to say this?!).
B: The stories you have read were all originally generated by the Arizona Republic to generate business, both in circulation and in advertising revenue. That is what newspapers do for a living, or aren't you aware of that? And you can read just about any news article up to this day and find flaws in it. Notice the "Corrections" portion of the local paper! Oh, they didn't have that generally in 1962.
C: I stand by my recollection of what happened and in what order it transpired. It consumed the students at Arcadia High that were forced to endure what was going on.
On that subject..........all the articles state that Arcadia High was located in Scottsdale, for example. Nope, Phoenix! Almost brand new at the time. Simply part of the Scottsdale Public School System (now Scottsdale Unified). Oops, an error.........and by the Arizona Republic. Now if the paper couldn't get that straight then how is one to believe anything else they state? Mull over that one.
D: It seems that since 2005 I am the only one who's bothered to even comment on your topic. And I only commented because I (again!) was there and physically saw and heard -- experienced if you will -- what actually transpired.

My personal belief is that going out on a limb as you have in this matter only fortifies the pro-abortion types and fuels their fires.

I highly suggest to anyone reading this to look at both sides of what's being said here and then decide for yourself whom you wish to believe. I have no axe to grind on this (as both my wife and I are anti-abortion supporters!). Apparently, for some unknown reason, Ms. Dunigan does. And its sad.

I'll leave it at that.

End of discussion.

Christina Dunigan said...

Why is it that as soon as I start really settling down to hear you out, you rant and end the discussion?

I'm perfectly willing to believe that the newspaper published a lot of crap that got picked up. Why, after all these years, when you find somebody who is actually LISTENING, do you shut it down?

And until now, there WERE no two sides. There was what has been published. What the MSM were saying. Both sides were agreeing on the details, but differing on their interpretation. Yours is the first voice I've heard challenging the underlying happenings. And I can't even get you to be clear on that.

Anonymous said...

Look, Christina..........This is my last comment on the subject.

I've told you in 17 different ways without swearing what transpired and you still don't get it.

You seem to want to make your point...right, wrong or indifferent.

I'm not going to repeat myself yet again.

GrannyGrump is a most befitting "handle" for you.

I wish you well in your life.


Christina Dunigan said...

Again, as soon as I try to narrow down where the accuracies and inaccuracies are, you just start sniping and shut down.

I'm freaking TRYING to hear you out. And I'm maybe the first stranger in fifty years who has done that about the whole Finkbine brouhaha.

I'm trying to find out where the story was portrayed accurately and where it wasn't, and all you do is rant. What the hell do you want?

I listed four points where the "common knowledge" seems to jibe with what you observed, and two points where "common knowledge" is different. And I asked if I got what you said accurately or not. And all you did was yell at me.

If you want to shut down, fine. I'll let the abortion lobby continue to define who Sherri and Bob Finkbine are. People who would move heaven and earth to achieve a dead baby. People who went to the newspaper to bitch about how unfair it is that you need a court order to get a baby killed. Let NARAL and company have the last say. Let the Arizona Republic have the last say. And we can leave it at that.

Unknown said...

I am the oldest granddaughter of Sherri and Bob Finkbine. It is disturbing to read this blog post and the comments that follow from someone who has never met my family nor like Jere said was even around during this time. I understand your passion for anti-abortion and I understand how easy it is to jump on a bandwagon and spew lies just because you think your opinion is correct. Your lack of knowledge, research and competence is so clearly evident in your writing and responses it's almost laughable if this wasn't such a serious event. It saddens me that a complete stranger would take it upon themselves to slander a family they do not know, and not even try to get the story straight. This one event has shaped my family in ways I can't even begin to explain to someone as closed minded and hateful as you. It was no small deal, it wasn't just shrugged off with a smile. I am 27 years old with a family of my own and this tragedy still weighs heavy on all our hearts, it is still taled about and that fetus is still mourned over. You have absolutely NO right, no creditbility, and no place talking about this story, which is clearly all it is to you, a story and a way to sell hate-driven add space for your blog.

Both of my grandparents are still alive and well and I would suggest you not say another word about this EVER, and think long and hard about how your words tainted with lies and hate effect others. You are not the moral athority on abortion or abortion rights. Your opinion is most likely based in a fruitless religion, not any kind of real life experience as we can all see by your misguided and unsupported tirades on subjects you truly know nothing about.