Thursday, July 13, 2006

Roundup from Pro Life Blogs

A doctor in Austria may be forced to pay child support for a baby with Down syndrome. Seems he didn't tell the 31-year-old mother that her baby might have a disability, so the woman didn't have prenatal tests done to spot the imperfection in her child until it was too late to legally abort.

1. I pity the kid not for having Down syndrome, but for having such an unloving and judgmental mother.

2. There are waiting lists of families waiting to adopt kids with DS. Nobody was forcing this woman to parent a "defective" child. Hey, lady, if you're unwilling to love your child, place her with people who will love her!

3. This underscores the need to clearly separate doctors -- especially ob/gyns -- into Hipocratic and "progressive." Parents who know they will want their baby to live no matter what can avoid needless medical tests -- not to mention the misery of being browbeaten by professionals urging them to abort. Parents who have a more, shall we say pragmatic attitude can be sure that their doctor will be looking for every sign that all is not going according to plan and will offer opportunities to abort at every sign of possible imperfection. This certainly will reduce the number of lawsuits.

HT: Birth Story


Also from Birth Story: Oregon parents are petitioning for a law that would prevent abortionists from assuming a parental role and just vacuuming their daughters out. Of course, abortion advocates are up in arms. The bogus claim that abortionists are just protecting girls from abusive families when they perform secret abortions is being trotted out. If the girl is being abused, she needs to be removed from the home, not suctioned out and returned to her abusers.


Yet another further different link from Birth Story: The Silent No More movement is starting a campaign in Canda. Somehow I doubt that these women's voices will be welcomed by the "pro-choice" movement. If you can't tell a "My abortion liberated me" story, they want you to remain silent. The sincerely pro-choice, on the other hand, should welcome this move, because it will allow women contemplating abortion to hear from dissatisfied customers, not just from the women satisfied enough with their own abortions to take jobs as counselors at abortion clinics.

The "pro-choice" movement's response to dissatisfied customers is telling, to say the least.

When I was considering oral surgery, part of the informed consent process was to speak to both satisfied and dissatisfied patients. (I never got that far; I opted out after being instructed to sleep on information about possible complications. And this was surgery I knew for ten years that I wanted!) Why should a woman considering abortion only be allowed to hear from women who thinks their lives were improved by their abortions? Wouldn't real choice necessitate the opportunity to hear from both sides? And if abortion is really as harmless -- nay, beneficial -- as its supporters claim, the dissatisfied customers would be few and far between, and they'd only be mildly disgruntled, not outraged or suicidal.


Here's a link from My Domestic Church: Point/Counterpoint

It's two essays, one for and one against the use of graphic photos of aborted babies.

I'm very much for non-graphic photos (many of which are really pictures of aborted babies; they're just sound, whole babies that don't look dead). A picture paints a thousand words. Information is good.

But graphic mangled baby pictures often shut people off. The observer shuts down to the point where no information is absorbed. This defeats the purpose.

I'd say that they should only be used in limited circumstances, and should always be used with care. After all, you have no idea if the person about to view that photo is post-abortion. If she's not in a supportive environment, the photos might trigger a crisis and leave her to cope with it alone.

From the anti-graphic essay:
[T]he problem for those identifying themselves as Christians is that instead of using the tools of spiritual warfare, i.e., prayer and fasting, these tactics, revulsion and intimidation, co-opt the weapons of the world.


[A Catholic pro-life woman] wondered if those bearing the offensive posters were forgetting the positive message of the Gospel and overshadowing it with the hostile message of the Prince of Darkness.


Anger, intimidation, ugliness, a hostile attitude and insensitivity may be detrimental to our own souls and those of the people we wish to persuade of the rightness of our cause.

And from the pro-graphic essay:
Not even the most vivid description, in words alone, can adequately convey the horror of this act of violence.


Graphic images of abortion have saved lives. One example is a letter I have from [a woman] who went to an abortion facility and found pro-life protesters there. "The posters they displayed, though very graphic, did succeed in bringing me back to reality and in conveying the horrible mutilation and dismemberment inflicted on the unborn child.... I decided to have the baby. It was the best decision I ever will make."


We use graphic images to save lives from other kinds of violence .... The anti-war movement in America was given momentum in the early '70's by a famous photo of a napalmed girl.

I find it particularly interesting that the anti-graphic essay focused on issues of faith, whereas the pro-graphic essay, though written by a priest, didn't really address spiritual aspects of the battle at all.


Woman tells of trauma of birth in toilet: From Australia, a woman's story about giving live birth to a 4-month baby who died five hours later. I have an entire page of live births during abortions here, including links to Baby Hope, Baby Rowan, and Sarah Brown. See also Ana Rosa Rodriguez, whose right arm was torn off at the shoulder in an abortion attempt.

No comments: