Friday, May 07, 2010

"Incompatible With Life?"

HT: Moral Outcry

Incompatible With Life? Some Children Die in Abortions, But Bella is Now Two

Pro-life Senator Rick Santorum and his family have put their money where their mouths are on more than one occasion. First, they did everything possible to save their son Gabriel, who was delivered prematurely but died. Now, they are seeing their daughter Bella, who has Trisomy 18 (also called Edwards Syndrome) past her second birthday.

When Bella was 3 months old, she needed some minor but vital surgery. Some doctors told us that a child like Bella wouldn't survive surgery or, even worse, that surgery was "not recommended" because of her genetic condition - in other words, that her life wasn't worth saving. So we again turned to the Children's Hospital and found compassion, concern, and hope in Dr. Thane Blinman. He told us he had several trisomy 18 patients who did well - and so did Bella.

Next week, we will mark Bella's second birthday. Over these two years, we have endured two close brushes with death, lots of sleepless nights, more than a month in CHOP's intensive care unit, and the constant anxiety that the next day could be our little girl's last.

And yet we have also been inspired - by her fighting spirit, and by the miracle of seeing our little flower blossom into a loving, joyful child who is at the center of our family life.

To reach out and help families of special-needs kids, check out ninety-nine balloons, founded by the parents of Eliot, who lived 99 days with Trisomy 18:


OperationCounterstrike said...

It's nice that Rick Santorum is wealthy enough to be able to afford to take care of a child with this medical problem.

An ordinary person would go bankrupt paying the medical bills.

Christina Dunigan said...

Which is where two things come into play:



We as a society spent half a million dollars searching for JFK Jr.'s bloated corpse. $5 billion of what we spend of gift cards won't be used. We spend $1 billion on over-the-counter tooth-bleaching products. $19 billion on video games. $29 billion on candy. We can afford to provide care to sick babies.

Katie said...

Disabled children can get free insurance through the government. In Indiana it's called childrens special health care services. I've never paid a dime for my disabled daughter's care.

But of course, pro-aborts don't want parents to know that, because they don't want those children to get the help they need. They want them dead.

OperationCounterstrike said...

"Free" insurance comes with high deductible and low maximum coverage amount.

Plus, there's all the non-medical costs, which can be enormous. Special kids require specially-trained baby-sitters.

Like I said, being brave and growing a genetically-defective pregnancy is fine, IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT like Rick Santorum. But for ordinary people it simply is not practical.

The idea that GOVERNMENT might FORCE someone to grow a genetically-defective pregnancy is an outrage, and it's what right-to-lifism is all about.

Christina Dunigan said...

First of all, you don't "grow a pregnancy". You grow tomatoes or cabbages. To refrain from killing a child is another matter entirely, and hardly strikes me as a mean spirited thing to do.

If there are financial burdens, ADDRESS THE BURDENS. Don't kill the child. What kind of "compassion" is it that you espouse, that says that only the wealthy or the well-insured should have the opportunity to unconditionally love their children?

If we as a society are failing these children and their families, the answer is to fix the shortcomings, not kill the children.

OperationCounterstrike said...

RE: "Address the burdens"

Sure, just conjure some money out of thin air. NEWSFLASH: Most people are not richer than they are because they are not able to make more money than they do. So they have no way to "address the burdens".

Here's an idea: YOU address the burdens. Let's pass a law saying Christina has to pay for care for all the genetically-defective fetuses people decide to grow after reading

If you don't like that, leave the pregnant women to make their own decisions. They understand their situations better than you do.

OperationCounterstrike said...

You seem to think everyone has a rich daddy, you can just "address the burdens" by asking him for more money. In fact most people do not have a source for money they can just turn to when they need it.

Growing genetically defective fetuses is a luxury, a special privilege which only rich people can indulge in without going bankrupt. Welcome to the real world.

OperationCounterstrike said...


Say it loud and say it proud.

Christina Dunigan said...

Keep shouting. You're the greatest argument alive against the "prochoice" philosophy -- one of soulless utilitarianism, coldheartedness, and hatred of the weak and vulnerable.

Lilliput said...

Just a question Christine, you hate the thought of a government telling you how to spend your money by taking it as taxes but you're ok with telling people they shouldn't spend their money on birthday cards and teeth whitening products but rather on disabled kids?

I'm a bit confused?

Christina Dunigan said...

I'm not saying that we need to compel people. I'm saying that the money is there.

There are ads on TV and radio and internet and billboards and magazines bombarding you with messages to eat candy, chew gum, smoke cigarettes, buy lottery tickets, wax your car, yada yada yada. People end up spending money on things that don't give them as much long term satisfaction as spending it to help people.

So we need to have needs brought more out into the open, to talk about them, to give people a chance to become aware and reach out. For example, there's a FaceBook page asking for prayers for a little boy who was badly injured when mauled by a dog. Family and friend have established a fund to cover the family's expenses. A friend joined the group (and may have made a donation as well); I joined and donated. Perhaps others will see that I joined and will likewise join and donate.

Pastor Mark Driscoll told a story about a young mother at Mars Hill Church who found out her young child had cancer. She asked her fellowship group to pray for her. One well to do couple had just bought a truck. As they prayed for the young woman, they felt moved to return the truck -- when they explained what for, the dealership refunded their money in full . They gave the money to the church with the instruction that they were to remain anonymous, but that somebody needed to tell that woman to take a year off work to care for her sick child. The woman was able to devote herself full time to her child's care, and his cancer is in remission.

People are capable of great acts of kindness and generosity, if only they know that their kindness and generosity are needed, and will not go to waste.

We need to foster this sort of love and support, not just say, "Well, you're poor so your baby just dies. Next time you conceive a sick baby, hit the lottery first."

Lilliput said...

"People end up spending money on things that don't give them as much long term satisfaction as spending it to help people."

Christina - have you heard of Co-dependancy?

Christina Dunigan said...

Lil, there's a huge difference between co-dependency and charity.

See Why Giving Makes you Happy.

Tonal Bliss said...

OC, **sarcasm alert!** the only solution to the problem that your espousing would be to go out with a sawed-off-shotgun and blow the heads off of every single disabled child you see.

Considering just how sick and disgusting you are, I wouldn't be surprised if you actually did such a horrendous act.

You are indeed such a compassionate liberal, OC!

Lilliput said...


Charity - implies a voluntary action. Not one imposed by guilt (you're selfish if you don't give) or threat - (you won't be as happy as I am if you don't give)

What you are failing to understand is that in order for a person to give - both financially or in time - they have to feel whole inside and feel that they have the space emotionally and financially in order to give.

This is why it is normally the white middle class who become involved in charities and take gap years to help out in third world orphanages. The majority of this world feel that they do not have enough to meet their needs.

Lilliput said...

Actually, I think this guy's comment from the article you sent me says it better then I do:

"Submitted by Carl C, Feb 4, 2008 20:43

This short atricle leads one (if one is willing to be lead) that giving leads to happiness. Could it not be true that happy people are the ones that tend to give. I don't see anything here about that."

Christina Dunigan said...

Lil, you and OC are making my point -- that "choice" is a way of saying "Not my problem." If she can just have an abortion, then "prochoice" people don't have to feel bad that the woman is in such a bad situation. She can bail via abortion, right? That fixes the problem, right?

No. Her baby is dead. She has to live with that the rest of her life. Some women are okay with that. They actually prefer dead babies to live ones. But they aren't the ones that have my sympathy. Sadly, they seem to be the ONLY ones that get prochoice sympathy, and the world is set up to placate them, not to help the moms who do NOT want their babies to die.

And if that doesn't strike you as wrong -- that the default position is "So, kill the baby and shut up about it." -- then I don't think there's anything anybody can say that can make you feel for these women and want better for them than empty arms and aching hearts.

Lilliput said...


I'm not telling anyone to kill their baby so don't put words in my mouth.

What I'm trying to understand is how you can marry your political views with what you actually believe. If you believe that people do not have a choice in financially supporting those less fortunate then themselves - then why don't you just support universal healhcare like here in Britain where a pregnant mom can give birth to a special needs child and everything will be taken care of.

This is my confusion?

If we have a choice - then don't pass judgement on those that don't choose to support. If there is no choice - then call it what it is - Tax and not Charity!!!

Christina Dunigan said...

Lil, it's the "universal health care" people who don't think it through. Make something free, and you increase the demand to where there is literally no way to keep up with it. And who gets cut off first? The people with the greatest need.

CHARITY is done from the heart, by human beings who actually give a happy shit about the people they're helping. BUREAUCRACY is soulless and doesn't give a shit about anything but rules. Which would you rather have helping you in a time of need?

During the whole Katrina debacle, it was the freaking SALVATION ARMY that was providing meals and showers to the FEMA workers, because the government bureaucrats couldn't figure out the logistics.

I work for a government funded agency. That means that I spend my days trying to serve as a buffer between needy people and the bureaucratic nightmare that will chew them up and spit them out if given a chance. They've been abused and battered by the system and the first thing I have to do is try to convince them that we're different, because we stand between them and the bureaucracy, rather than serve to inflict the bureaucracy on them the way other agencies have done in the past.

Pregnant woman faces problems. What happens if she goes "prochoice"? Her choices are fix your overwhelming problems on your own, or kill the baby. If she knew how to fix her overwhelming problems on her own, she'd not be desperate enough to be walking into an abortion clinic to begin with.

If she gets waylaid by prolifers on the way to the abortion mill, they actually ASK HER WHAT HER PROBLEMS ARE AND HELP HER WITH THEM. I've seen it happen with my own eyes. I've made it happen with my own hands.

One woman stumbled across Ashli McCall. Ashli put out a plea for help online and contacted a CPC locally. People all over the world coughed up donations, which they sent to the CPC. The CPC cut a check to keep the woman's house from being foreclosed. Once that pressure was gone, the woman was given some budgeting help and counseling, and got back on her feet. One financial crisis. Prochoice: "Sort it out yourself or kill your baby but don't pester us." Prolife: "Here's the money so your house doesn't get foreclosed. What else do you need help with?"

We've found housing for people. We've hooked them up with doctors who could treat medical conditions they had never been told were treatable. We've hooked them up with families to adopt their special needs kids. We actually buckle down and don't stop until we address the actual underlying problems.

Which side do you think REALLY appreciates the barriers the women face? The people who take the money, kill the baby, and send her on her way, or the people who actually roll up their sleeves and FIX the shit?

Lilliput said...


The solution lies somewhere between the two extremes. I agree with you that making something free raises demands to a level the system cannot cope with. I agree that charity works better because there is a face and a heart to the money which somehow makes the receiver be less inclined to take the mickey. However, the problem with the heart is that it comes with judgement. If a woman came up to you and said I need money for an abortion, I have thought it through and I don't want to mother this child or adopt it. I just want an abortion. Would your heart allow you to give her the money?

You are glad to support what you believe is the right thing but people believe differently and therefore there has to be someone whose heart allows them to donate for an abortion.

The internet is riddled with stories of moms guilted and coerced to relinquish their children by well meaning christian charities.

My favourite charity is seashepherd whp try to stop the complete decemation of our sealife - u probably don't think about that at all and I have to respect that in the same way that you have to respect that I think saving a child whose quality of life is questionable.

Christina Dunigan said...

Of course I'd not give her money for an abortion, any more than I'd give her money for a hit man to shoot a love rival. I'm sure that somebody who agreed with her that a dead baby is an okay goal would help get the money together -- prochoice books are full of stories of women pooling their resources to ensure that an abortion went through as wanted by somebody.

Too many people want a "set it and forget it" way of dealing with human suffering. "I paid my taxes; let the government deal with the unwashed masses." But your REAL humanity has a chance to shine through when you take an active part. If you want to involve yourself with saving sea creatures, go for it! That's a noble cause. My daughter and I volunteered at an exotic cat sanctuary, taking care of rescued lions and tigers and leopards and bobcats. (I'd be more likely to donate to Save the Tigers and Save the Manatees, but I recognize that this is a matter of taste; I happen to just prefer tigers. I know they're not morally superior to manatees.)

Baby Rowan's mom, Angele, is very actively involved in fighting adoption abuse (the problem you mentioned of women being unfairly pressured to relinquish). Surprised? A prolifer on a "prevent adoption abuse" kick?

The issue with abortion is that it's not a matter of mere belief. There are very real human beings being killed. Not tooth fairies or unicorns -- human beings. Real women are being harmed. Not hypothetical women. Stacie Zallie and Arlin della Cruz were left in so much pain they killed themselves. To ask prolifers to just drop it because to do so is to "respect other's beliefs" -- well, Somali warlords think they have every right to hack up children with machetes. I don't have to respect other's beliefs if those beliefs include a belief that they can slaughter other people just because they personally prefer slaughter.

Lilliput said...


I appreciate what you say and I have to agree with everything you have written. The only thing I would like to add is that there is an equal and opposite side to "REAL humanity" . It is as human to kill as it is to save lives. Both are real and both are human. Both have to be accepted in order to have a peacefull existence - otherwise you make an us and them situation.

You would probably be ok with killing the Somali Warlords whereas I would feel that that is unfair as they were moulded into the killing machines they became by circumstances out of their control.

You see we both agree with killing - its just the timing that's different.

For a women facing an unwanted pregnancy - there will always be an element of harm to her and the baby. There is sufficent evidence to suggest to me that the harm to both of them is greater through adoption or forced parenting. You are right - this isn't about belief's its about people. Its about making sure these children you so badly want to save - don't become the very "warlord soliders" we kill anyway.

It is always better never to have been.

Christina Dunigan said...

Lil, a Somali warlord is an actual physical threat. If we do not kill him, he will hack the arms off children and leave them in the bushes to die. Probably after he and his buddies gang rape them half to death. The death of one Somali warlord -- who, however influenced by his upbringing, is still CHOOSING to be a terror and a danger -- saves the lives of perhaps tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

What does killing a fetus accomplish? Left to itself, would the fetus kill the mother and then slaughter half the neighborhood?

Show me an armed and aggressive fetus, and I'll grant you that there are similarities to the situation in Somalia.

Lilliput said...

I'm not comparing a fetus with a warlord - all I'm saying is that we both agree that sometimes murder is necessary we just don't agree on the timing.

On the topic if free will - I'm not sure how much someone can choose to do something that they have never experienced before.

Christina Dunigan said...

What I don't get is how you can even REMOTELY compare aborting a helpless, innocent baby with defending helpless, innocent people from murderous warlords. It's like defending the white man's slaughter of all the buffalo on the grounds that sometimes you have to shoot a rabid dog by saying, "Well, we agree that sometimes it's necessary to kill an animal. We just disagree on WHEN."

You're basically saying that there is NO difference between an aggressor killing innocent people, and defending innocent people against an aggressor. In fact, if I'm reading you right, you're saying that personally, you side with the aggressor (Somali warlord, abortionist) against the innocents (children hacked up regardless of by whom, be it Somali warlord or abortionist.)

I guess if you approve of one kind of child-slaughter, any other kind of child-slaughter seems acceptable.

Lilliput said...

You can defend innocent people without killing the aggressor. How do you solve an unwanted pregnancy without forcing parenthood or giving the baby away like a christmas present?

If you can solve that then we won't need this blog anymore.

Christina Dunigan said...

Lil, pregnancies terminate all on their own, usually at about nine months. Somali warlords, to my knowledge, just keep slaughtering people until somebody takes them out.

Now, if you think Somali warlords are such keen guys who just need a little understanding and love, go for it. Where shall we have the pieces of you mailed to?

Lilliput said...

Christina - you got me there! I meant unwanted babies - but nice dodging of the real issue:)

Somali warlords need to be locked up - but they don't necessarily need to be killed.

Are u interested at all in how the Somali warlords became that way?

Christina Dunigan said...

Lil, how they became that way would be fascinating, but that doesn't change reality. How do you think you would capture them to lock them up? How many soldiers' lives would be lost in the effort to capture one Somali warlord alive?

Lots of people have shitty childhoods but don't grow up to be psychopaths.