In Kansas, a deranged man stands accused of an objectively horrible thing, murdering – in church – the provider of late-term abortions. Never mind the fact that anyone countenancing murder, for any reason, cannot rationally be called “pro-life”, the political left is predictably using this crime as an opportunity to bludgeon those who believe that abortion on demand up to the very moment of birth may not be an unalloyed good.
On Firedoglake, Attaturk casts the pro-life movement as terrorists, because, you know: Many of them may be motivated by religion. Like Ayman al Zawahiri.
And over at Think Progress, Faiz Shakir goes cherry-picking for the predictable loons who rationalize the taking of a human life, and finds them.
Time is short, but these two sites are, I think, illustrative of the broader theme – everyone who has moral qualms with late term abortion and exercises their fundamental right to protest against it may be painted with the same brush as a nutball murderer.
All murders are equally abhorrent, but the rights of women seeking abortion – the rights of women generally – are in a special class for the left. So it was that I went searching through the archives of Firedoglake and Think Progress for reactions on the gruesome murders of poor Amina and Sarah Said in Texas by their father Yaser Abdel Said last year, using their “father’s” name as a search term. This retrieves six posts on the former site – none of them having to do with the murdered Texans – and none at all on Think Progress.
This has all the proper elements: Violence against women with a religious nexus.
I wonder what the difference could be?
This was a terrible crime, and its a shame a man’s brutal murder is being politicized–much as a woman’s right (hopefully in consultation with a loving partner) to deal with terrible and difficult personal decisions is politicized.
This particular doctor is being labeled intriguingly, as a “late term abortion provider”–a label which includes pregnancies at 21 weeks as much as 39 weeks. 21 weeks can be the difference between access to a car ride or not, and despite what we think we “know” scientifically about gestational cycles, the reality is, the calendar for counting pregnancy weeks begins its countdown on the day the last menstruation began…so the window for legal abortion is really quite small in the scheme of things–some women have lost the window before knowing they are pregnant.
And despite what hysterical posturing might lead one to believe, there are not elective abortions at 39 weeks…or 38 weeks, or even 30, so the term “abortion on demand” is another verbal political incendiary device.
So maybe what both sides need to do is step down and rethink the rhetoric that makes deranged people on both sides think that there might be approval for such actions among the broader public.
As someone has already mentioned elsewhere (What? You expect me to have ALL the good ideas?) it’s really amazing how the left has suddenly rediscovered–neigh–fallen in love with, the word terrorist.
File under: Gored oxen, the usual hipprocy, utter mendacity, leftards, fucking wankers,
Let me amend that: “Bloody fucking wankers” There, that’s better.
So uninformed as to be hysterical. There aren’t elective abortions at 30 weeks, 38 weeks? What are you talking about…there are hundreds and even thousands of such abortions every single year!
Gary,
I just checked and according to Wikipedia, there were 12,075 abortions performed on babies of 30 weeks or longer gestation in 2005. I suspect that a great number of these are “on demand”.
What exactly makes you think that? I don’t know of any states that grant ‘on demand’ third trimester abortions. Under Kansas law, for example, where the deceased doctor practiced, abortion is prohibited when fetus viable, with only two exceptions: (1) The abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman; or (2) a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.
The amount of hyperbole on this issue knows no bounds. There are several million pregnancies every year in this country, sometimes things go horribly wrong.
Liz…..I’m not gonna get into a he said she said argument with you…they benefit no one.
The man’s specialty was late term abortions. On top of being an MD, he was a businessman. One would have to terribly naive not to believe that he performed his share of those 12,075 30 week plus late term abortions.
Under Kansas law, for example, where the deceased doctor practiced, abortion is prohibited when fetus viable, with only two exceptions: (1) The abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman; or (2) a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. It is so easy for a doc to justify an abortion under these terms
It would be beneficial to separate the medical from the moral in this debate, for only then can one differentiate what is of need from what is of convenience, or perhaps necessary or even life-saving.
Then again, there’s a lot of people in the medical profession telling me I *need* to lose weight, exercise, wash my hands with an antiseptic soap, gargle with a particular brand and wipe front-to-back and did I mention four out of five dentists recommend sugar-free gum?
Ever wonder what that fifth dentist knows that the others don’t?
I won’t bore you with my own story, a child at 27 weeks gestation. She was breathing when she was born, but needed some help from a cpap and caffeine. When they mentioned she was on caffeine I asked the docs if she would soon graduate to cigarettes and whiskey.
Not a single smile. Harsh, that audience.
So, one might ask, if a child born at 27 weeks can live, be healthy, off the charts on the cognitive tests the hospital gives every six months along with a bill for the services rendered…
Ummm… What happened at 30 weeks or 38 or 39 that made this doctor elect to perform an abortion?
Yes, he elected to perform it. He’s not up to his credit card limits in federal bail-out money, nobody is blackmailing him to do the procedure. If he’s a doctor he believes he is doing lesser harm by aborting than by not doing so. I would have liked to hear his side of the debate.
Now I cannot.
I doubt he would have changed my mind, all things considered, but I’d have at least liked to have heard his opinion.
– Max
The usual responses from that type crowd. Murder is a relative term, it only means what they want it to mean and only applies to those whom they apply it to. Only their definition counts, i.e. the Nazis, the Bolshiviks/Stalinists, the Maoists, the Khmer Rouge.
Of note to those for whom facts matter- these are all atheists and the greatest mass murders in history. And they come from the far sides of the opposite ends of the political spectrum.
As for the murder (The Natural Law) of Tiller, a travesty and never justified. The perp should be punished severly.
I do not excuse the killer. Choices and consequences. That is our lot on this Earth.
I do, object to those who would call this “terrorism.” Yes, the term applies, but when viewed in the filter of current and not so past news, I think the actual physical death toll for abortion providers is to that huge number of 2.
Somewhat, but maybe not with the “New Left Math” method, short of even 2996 from but one day in 2001.
I know, it’s emotionally painful for some to walk past those holding signs or prayer vigils at their offices, but not the same kind of terror Daniel Pearl might has felt in his last minute of his life.
’nuff said for now.
Thanks for the linkage of topics, Lex. It’s this context that is often specifically avoided, to not to have to answer that “so how do you square this view of yours with that view?”
BTW, Still see NOW as UA/AWOL in this mess you mention.
“Yes, the term applies”
Um, sorry, but it doesn’t. The murderer apparently acted out of a sense of”retribution” or “justice,” not with a goal of effecting political or personal change through the application or threat of violence. As wrong as anti-abortion violence is, wails of “theocracy” and “terrorist” do make it an organized and financed mission.
Terrorism takes planning, organization and specific political/societal goals. Lone wackos are dangerous and need to be dealt with, but conflating them with terrorists misses the mark.
In terms doing things for religious reasons, we all do that, we may not see it that way, we may say we’re doing it because it’s “right”, but it was a line of reasoning with a moral/philosophical/ religious base that got us there.
Do I condone killing the doctor? No.
Can I see what line of reasoning gets the guy there? Yes.
Once the guy decides this doctor is murdering babies, and the state is failing to stop him, at some point his morality demands that he act. I suspect that even now he feels justified, and will go to prison feeling the same way.
If, for example, that doctor was killing two year old toddlers, and the government wasn’t acting to stop him, you and I (and 10 million other people) would decide on moral grounds that it was intolerable. We would stop him, one way or another. We would, in fact, kill, and believe that we did it because we were “pro-life”. In this guy’s mind, it was the exact same thing.
If stopping evil is the moral thing to do, do you only do it when the government gives you permission?
If you answer to the previous question is yes, ask yourself how you would behave if slavery was legal and this doctor was executing his slaves when they got to old to work.
We must remain a nation of laws, and strive through peaceful ways to change bad laws. And in the interim, abide by the laws as written. All other paths lead to chaos.
Lex/
Except (and I am of two minds about the entire subject as I am an agnostic and my wife a pre-Vatican II Catholic) as someone else pointed out this am, what laws did the farmers obey when they fired on the red-coats at Lexington and Concord? What laws did the colonists obey when they seized the armories? Did not the Declaration of Independence cite “natural law” as a basis for action and a rationale to supercede the man-made laws of King George and Parliament? Of course, the colonists had to be willing to accept the possibility of the loss of life, liberty and all they owned (which many of the signers indeed suffered) just as this man did when he committed the act he chose. Do I personally approve? No. Would I have prevented his actions would I had it in my power? Yes. But I certainly understand, like ASM826, where he was coming from from a philosophical standpoint.
Absolutely! I know what my moral position is on both abortion and murder, and I also know what the legal position is on both. I may not agree with the law (and there are many laws I believe are wrong) but the law must be either followed or changed. If everyone makes their own rules we become Somalia.
With due respect, the law doesn’t die when it is offended or attacked. People do. While we are a nation of laws there does exist a difference between ignoring a law and harming none versus breaking a law and harming one or many.
Chaos is what happens when the majesty of the law disagrees with you and you find no reourse to change the law.
– Max
Lex,
If that is true, how can we justify what Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and the others did in the 1770′s?
Not all paths lead to chaos. Some lead into the light. Laws can be wrong, and it can be wrong to follow them. The trials at Nuremberg highlighted the necessity for even military officers to make moral decisions that oppose immoral laws and orders.
I am not saying that the murder of this doctor was the right time or a necessary decision, but to suggest that we should abide by any law that might be passed seems too sweeping a statement.
SF,
ASM826
This is what I wrote in the comments section over to Castle Argghhh! last night.
————————————
Abortion=Murder
He profited, and that quite well, through taking innocent lives. Innocent human lives who were charged, convicted, and executed without benefit of council, the right to face their accuser, or even to hear the charges presented against them. Innocent human lives which were in every sense of the word American Citizens. Citizens deprived of due process. I’d say that was certainly a hate crime, as well as a text-book civil right’s case.
Abortion is legal, but that does not in any way make it acceptable, especially when more than 95% are performed for convenience.
Regardless. I shall shed no tears at his death, nor shall the hypocritical words of his survivors move me to any sort of pity. They cannot even bring themselves to use the word “abortion”. They say “Women’s Health”. It’s like saying “final solution” rathen than genocide.
The doctor made a pact with the Devil, then went to Church on Sunday. Smiled all the way to the bank. Now people are upset that the Devil came to collect his due.
Karma
——————————
Lex/
As a general comment, I should like to key in on you’re choice of the word “deranged.” Now, he indeed may be, from a clinical perspective–but maybe not. It has not escaped the notice of many students of the bureaucratic mind-set that most authoritarian systems–be they the US armed services, Soviet Russia, etc.–tend to view any actions “outside the lines” as indications of psychariatic
disorders. The first thing that commanders do in many administrative/courts martial proceedings is order a psychariatic work-up. The Soviets were famous for committing dissidents to mental hospitals. In short, there is always a tendency in ANY given system to believe that those who don’t buy into the then extant widely accepted social/legal/origanizational norms as being “not normal” for failing to see and fully appreciate all the “advantages” of the system. So lets not be too hasty in labeling this guy. He may have done it in a coldly calculated way fully cognizant of the risks he ran and the likely punishment that awaits him. Or Not.
You should have listened to NPR’s All Things Considered on Monday. The host was talking to a person from Kansas, and was phrasing his questions as if everyone who was opposed to abortion was a dangerous murderer. The MD, on the other hand, was without stain, as abortions are America’s most sacred right.
Sorry, I have to disagree. We’re not going to take up arms to force half the country to accept our version of morality, and a man who would take it upon himself to travel half way across Kansas I’m order to gun a man down in church -in deliberate, cold blood – for doing work that the state deems legal meets my definition of deranged.
We don’t win this fight, or save many unborn, by killing doctors. Those who yes-but the issue only provide ammunition to those who’d like nothing better than to close the discussion by tarring us all with the same brush.
I concur. I am not happy that someone took it upon himself to murder the doctor in question.
Having said that, I’m also not losing any sleep over it either.
I’d posit that the murderer had more in common with John Brown than with the founding fathers.
Respects,
AW1Tim/
You’re probably right about the John Brown bit. Headlong passion-driven killing is hardly guaranteed to win friends and influence people. But as Chris Rock said about the O.J. murders: “Now you must know I don’t approve of the taking of life or anything–but I UNDERSTAND.”
(It’s called controlling our emotions at the 2nd grade elemental level)
I also agree with Lex.
Remember the powerful argument that appeared in “A Man for All Seasons”. It ran something like this:
“Yes, and once you had cut down all the laws to pursue the devil, what law will you hide behind when the devil turns on you?”
I was a devout Catholic when the Right to Life ammendment was being voted on in the state legistlature. I was a member of the Knights of Columbus. But then I hear our priest exhort his parish from the pulpit, that any of us that did not work the phones, the telegrams, whatever it took to pressure our members of the house and senate. If we did not, we could be threatened with excommunication, which is as bad as it gets for a Catholic. I thought about that long and hard during the rest of the mass, and came to a decision. I met the priest outside after mass, and told him that I would not be attending the Catholic Church again, as I could not in good faith force my beliefs on those who did not share my religious code of conduct. I told him that threatening me with excommunication was wrong to do; I had no intentions of ever ending the life of any of MY unborn children, but that all I could do for others was to pray for them, for those that did not share my beliefs should not be bound by my beliefs. I believe that abortion is a sin. I am not the judge, however, and those that do end an unborn life will be judged by Him.
Byron,
I spent 22 years as a member of Father DeSmet Council of Brigham City Utah. Similar exhortations from the 4th degree members, as well as the Pulpit were what started me on my path of separation from the Church.
It was hard enough being Catholic amongst all the Mormons, without the additional baggage being tossed up on your shoulders without discussion.
Believe me, I understand.
respects,
It wasn’t an easy path, Tim. And while I flirted with the Lutherans ( who had an extremely fine pastor) I finally was fed with the whole thing, and decided to simply stick with what the Man handed down to Moses. Ten simple rules.
The problem is Tiller wasn’t doing what the law allowed, and the state shirked its duty, indeed, actively subverted one prosecutor from doing his duty to bring Tiller to justice. As one poster above pointed out, late term (i.e. illegal) abortions were his specialty.
This is one situation in which I have very mixed feelings. Tiller deserved what he got, but the State, doing its duty, would have been the one to do it. The lawlessness of the state is the more horrid of the situation because it leads to more lawlessness.
Either the State lives up to its responsibility, or chaos reigns. Both the State and the murder, are deranged. The State’s responsibility, in the case, is the heavier, and it shirked it.
We have taken up arms, once before, one half of the country against the other, to force an issue of morality.
Slavery was a horrible institution, the history of which makes very difficult reading.But the United States deemed it legal, and legal it remained, until the issue was forced.
The underlying question, “Are they human?”, is even the same. Because if they are, then war would not be too strong a reaction to put a stop to it. If they are not, if it is only birth that magically makes them human, then it means nothing, and abortion, along with pregnancy, is just a medical condition.
Being against abortion, but also against cold-blooded murder – especially in the House of God, my only comment is that the doctor’s end was probably a lot less painful to him than the procedure he made a living performing on those helpless souls.
All we need now to stoke the fires of liberal righteous indignation is for the perp to even utter the comment “God told me to”.
Shame that a “provider” was murdered. And he wasn’t even a terrorist to most. Nation of laws, right…National Socialist Germany et al come to mind – many of us opine about what shoulda been done to stop Nazis in the name of “morality”, and Deutschers were by all accounts much more literate than the current US. So I guess it’s not a problem we can solve with the intellect alone (Progressives, utilitarians & humanists take note…).
IMHO, not too hard to figure out except for pelvic scientists…and if morality comes in versions, that’s a first for me..perceptions maybe..(-*
It is a child & you know it = murder
It is a child and you don’t know it = irresponsible at best, manslaughter at worst? (“That’s a deer, not a cow!”)
It is not a child and you know it=go ahead & turn science on it’s head (or pelvis). (H/T Kreeft)
Maybe someone can explain why destroying a bald eagle egg is a felony – oh right, cuz it’s a chimp in disguise! At least “endangered” bird life has worth. Lot’s of moral high-ground there.
Moral qualms? One would have to be the chicken in this scenario, as the pig would argue his concern is greater. (Typical riposte: “But I can’t hear any pigs complaining…”)
Years ago, I had an ethics teacher who posited that, regardless of one’s position on abortion, the fact was beyond debate that abortion was the violent destruction of a valuable form of human life.
He was (and still is) absolutely correct in his definition.
respects,
If the Pro-Life Movement Is Responsible for the Murder of Tiller . . . [Noemie Emery]
. . . isn’t the peace movement responsible for the shootings at the recruiting station?
Every cause has extremists and lunatics, which the saner ones cannot control.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTQ1YzkxYzYwYjA0NzliODYxZDVhMDI4OTlkNGQ1NTE=
Answering Guy C above. For some reason the reply won’t work for me:
Guy C said: “Under Kansas law, for example, where the deceased doctor practiced, abortion is prohibited when fetus viable, with only two exceptions: (1) The abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman; or (2) a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. It is so easy for a doc to justify an abortion under these terms”
Yes, of course it’s easy to justify abortion under those terms. Those are also the terms of justifiable use of force in almost any instance, for cricky’s sake.
ASM: I think I understand where you’re coming from but there are peaceable means to overturn unjust laws.
Then again, I have to ask the question: Isn’t destruction of the unborn in month nine (for example) “killing” the same as the murder of the doctor? From a practical, not legal standpoint.
What magic occurs when the fetus travels down the birth canal that transforms it into a “human” in a late term pregnancy? I know of seven premature births that are now active, happy, healthy children.
Wilko,
Which brings into question the entire argument of the “pro-Choice” side, vis-a-vis “viability”.
To my mind, no one is “viable”, as the left defines, it, as being able to exist outside the womb without assistance.
We are all dependant on others for our survival. From the farmers who grow our food, to the folks who build our houses, to the workers who build our cars. to the employers for whom we work, we all depend on everyone else for the things we need to survive.
Even those great individuals, who can and do provide everything for themselves, from raising sheep and spinning wool for cloth, to raising their own crops and hunting their own game, there is still a human need for social interaction.
Humans simply CANNOT live without other humans. We can survive, but the mental toll of such a solitary existence has been proven time and again to be severely detrimental to the psyche.
The issue of “viability” when considering abortion, is simply a strawman argument, that falls apart when examined with the light of objectivity.
I can understand the need, from time to time, of abortion. Even the Catholic Church understood that the life of a mother with living children over-rode the life of an unborn child when carrying to term might, and likely would, result in death or incapacitation of the mother.
But today’s abortions are, in almost every case, done for convenience’ sake, and in that result, are virtually no different from the reasons stated by the Nuremberg Laws for Germany implementing their “final solution” to the “Jewish problem”.
Respects,
True-and further to your viability argument : A newborn isn’t “viable” without constant care and attention yet it enjoys the protections of the law.
Of course our president would think differently as I recall his comment about “Not wanting to “punish” his daughters with a baby”. The solution to make the “mistake” go away.
Lex,
I agree with your overall point. I find your terminology plays into the hands of the moral relativists when you said “our version of morality”.
I would argue that truth is what it is, and stands whether one likes it or not. As Thomas Aquinas put it,”Truth is the conformity of the mind to what is”.
For some that is difficult, especially when many of these rabid abortion rights individuals spend most of their lives with their head up their ass.
Respects,
Dust
Wilko,
I am not suggesting that I think the murder of the doctor was moral or acceptable. Murder is wrong.
As far as abortion goes, to me, a ” late term abortion ” is no different form infanticide. It would be more intellectually honest to legalize killing unwanted babies for some time after they leave the womb. Leave it up to the parents for 30 days. If the child is still viable after a month, it gets a name and a birth certificate.
The only thing I would change is having a doctor involved. The parents would have to do it themselves, and live with it. They couldn’t wake up after a medical procedure and pretend that some unwanted tissue had been removed.
We could call it post-womb abortion. That way it wouldn’t be murder, making it legal, just like partial-birth abortion.
Did anyone happen to see that late term abortion is prohibited by law in Kansas unless the mother is
1) going to die immediately or
2)going to lose the function of an organ vital to sustain her life?
Just curious…
Liz, I saw that. I suspect most of us have.
It would seem that the state, as enforcer of the law, bears a responsibility here. The doctor, of course, bears one as well.
Under discussion is what one does when the law is unenforced, or an ass.
– Max
MD,
May I ask what leads you to believe the law was being violated, or not enforced?
Seems clear enough. There’s nothing nebulous there, no ambivalent terms like ‘health’, just straight-forward language that this procedure is only permitted when the mother’s life is in mortal danger. Nor have I seen evidence that this doctor violated that law.
Long time reader-first time poster…possibly last time, as I’m afraid I’ll be flamed..
I do not agree with abortion, especially the morally repugnant “late term”, especially not for myself. But last year I might have been one of the women Laurie references, struggling to “deal with terrible and difficult personal decisions.” My healthcare provider didn’t want to worry us by sharing the early pregnancy test results indicating a much higher risk for a birth defect which is universally fatal for babies. So she played the odds & said nothing.
Left the hospital with a tubed and wired 4 pound infant. 60 minutes later the Doctor called us on the cell with a terminal diagnosis, suggesting we find another doctor to “explain it in detail, but he probably won’t live long”. The second opinion doctor clarified that our child’s rare syndrome meant “he might be with you a short time, or outlive you, so plan accordingly.”
I loved my baby before he was born, when he was placed in my arms, & more every day. But knowing that he might not walk, and never talk to tell me where it hurts, and I may still be changing diapers on a 6 foot tall man at 18 is difficult. Emptying the college fund (we were good parents even before we became parents) to pay for surgeries and medical expenses, special needs trusts in case he outlives us, daily therapies, Daddy deploying-its difficult. Life’s not fair, and I ache that its not more fair for our beautiful child, who deserves so much more.
Whatever our pro-life/pro-choice feelings, running around shooting people outside the rule of law is rarely an effective tactic. It certainly doesn’t help the many people who want to reduce or eliminate abortions in this country.
Virgil’s Chris Rock quote goes both ways.-I now UNDERSTAND some women, who face an agonizing choice when faced with horrific news. I can’t imagine not having our son here now, but caring for a severely disabled child is not easy. I don’t see this issue as black and white as I used to, thats for sure-sorry to ramble. Thanks for letting me share.
Shel, thank you so much for adding such a personal and poignant angle to the discussion.
I must say that I cannot imagine who here (among the regulars) would flame you for such a posting.
Shel, you may be a first time poster but you are welcome back any time you wish. Thanks for your input.
shel/
Your heart-felt story illustrates why many thoughtful medical ethicists have suggested the est. of counseling boards consisting of the physician, pastor, a medical-financial expert, psychologist/psychiatrist, etc. to help people in your situation think thu the truly terrible emotional and financial dilemmas like the one you faced. There are truly no good answers to be had in such situations, and whichever path is chosen, second-guessing, guilt and regret will always linger. Thank you for sharing an obviously angst-ridden story. My wife, an RN for over 35 yrs who has seen oh so many families of her patients face such moral and financial dilemmas involving all kinds of maladies, and I both wish the best for you in what will obviously be a rough and uncertain road ahead.
Shel,
Imagine how it feels for the father, when your wife decides to abort your child because she doesn’t want to be a mother again.
That happened to me. It’s why we are separated. I had no choice in the matter, even though she was well along and into the second trimester. She decided she didn’t want to be pregnant again, so the baby was murdered.
My child too. It was as if I did not exist. No one cared what i wanted. no one cared about what I had to say. I offered to take the child and raise it alone if needs be, in order to let it live.
But the state doesn’t believe in that sort of thing. It doesn’t care one whit what the father wants, or has to say. It really could care less if the woman even knows who the father is.
Abortion is an industry, with too many careers and jobs on the line, too many reputations, too many senate and congressional seats in the mix to allow for a truly informed and open debate.
It’s time that abortion was treated as murder, and those who perform them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Bitter? You bet I am. I lost a child, murdered through the collusion of my wife, Planned Parenthood, and the doctors they paid to kill my child.
I have other children to take care of. I won’t take any action that would jeopardize that. However, I won’t lose any sleep over the loss of doctors, nurses, staffs or clinics that are part and parcel to this modern genocide.
If abortion is allowed for every potential birth defect, then where will you draw the line? Eye color? gender? Potential IQ? It’s Saturday?
Anyone can justify murdering an innocent child. It takes someone with courage to step up and say “I’ll love that child. I’ll take care of it”.
The largest part of parenting is sacrifice. If taking care of a disabled child is the hardest thing ever asked of me, then I will be truly blessed.
And Shel, you are not alone. Anything you need, just ask. If it is within my power to give, I’ll have it downrange asap.
Others, I am certain, will echo the sentiment.
Gods Bless you and yours.
Tim,
Thanks for sharing your experience. I’ve seen you post about your child before, and I can’t imagine that pain. I do agree with you that fathers’ wishes are all too often overlooked or ignored.
And yes, I absolutely agree that its a slippery slope-you are right about that. Our situation is closer to the one Liz described than not wanting a child for eye color, but you have a very valid point.
Our baby defin has challenges but he has a loving family-all of whom do what we can to further his quality of life. He’s been a blessing to us.
Thanks to everyone for the welcome. This was a hard topic to jump in on. I’m happy to not be a lurker anymore.
Shel,
I was a might selfish in restating my own experience. I beg your indulgence in the matter, and only confess that it’s a personal thing with me, and should have perhaps been kept back. I apologize for stepping on your post.
However,
You will find strong opinions, medicine, and other things here. What you will also find is good company, and and a willingness to listen.
The company in these parts is right good, and honest. We might argue and smack eachother about a bit, but it’s all a part of the whole.
In the end, all any of us have is eachother. It’s a gallant company here abouts. That it is, indeed.
Glad to have you with us.
Regarding those opinions – Of course, we are right, everyone of us. If you don’t believe it, just one of us.
Just ignore that fella that talks about P-3s now and again, he’s been known to rave a bit about certain regional alcoholic beverages that we know are just figments of his imagination caused by severe northeastern winters.
Thankyou, Shel,
I can’t imagine being in your position, I’m so sorry. I’ve been very blessed with healthy children, no problems during my pregnancies (knock on wood) but I do have a friend who had a third trimester abortion many years ago. It was her third child. She, too, was anti-abortion (still is, to most extent) and never thought she would be in a position like that. She has since had two more healthy children.
I was suffering from monumental ignorance before that. This is not a procedure that people go in to with the ease of a tooth cleaning. Her baby was anencephalic. It didn’t have a full brain, only the stem. Anencephalic babies, in addition to being unable to live outside the womb for much of any period of time, are usually not like regular pregnancies….she was on full bedrest, retained water to the point she resembled a whale, and on dialysis by the time she finally ceded to the abortion. If she had carried it to term she might have died, and it’s a certainty that she wouldn’t have functioning kidneys today (unless via donor). And her baby wouldn’t have lived a day anyway.
This entire issue has become so disgusting that the ordinary American; those not immediately touched by the issue, just want to turn away.
We now have a President that supports partaial birth abortion and, in the extreme, letting botched abortion babies die in a trash can.
It is very hard to take a “moderate” position on this issue.
We now have a “late term abortion Dr.” gunned down while entering church.
This will add decades of fodder to the “abortion whenever” coalition.
I am so sorry that this took place.
Let’s see what the left (not to mention the MSM) will do with this story about a Muslim in this country gunning down two young soldiers at a recruiting station for “politcal and religious reasons”. Somehow I think the outrage will be deafening in its muted response on this equally egregious and heinous act as was Tiller’s murder.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,524139,00.html?test=latestnews
At most it will make a news cycle or two, and then only because of the blood & guts element of this awful crime.
Two more service members lose their lives to a Muslim fanatic and half the country will not care because of their political beliefs.
And BHO will go on his public apology tour to Muslims, and to kiss the feet of Muslim leaders.
Sorta like how everyone overlooked Mother Theresa’s death due to bad timing…
Popular Media? Shallow? Naaaahhhhh…
Shel,
Thanks for sharing your story. God bless you for your courage, generousity and example. Embracing your crosses makes them become easier to carry and can bring an inexplicable inner joy. Yet not easy. For what it is worth, my best wishes and prayers for you and yours.
Dustan Chaff
Well lets see Lex. (And I’ll use small words so your readers can understand). In one case a father murdered his daughters because of his personal feelings about their behavior and didn’t want his “reputation” to suffer. In the other a madman murdered a doctor because he and his friends had been unable to achieve their political goals through the ballot box or through the courts. Do you understand the concept of terrorism. Both were scum but only one is trying to change the laws of the land through the use of violence. Geez you wingnuts are getting dumber.
Do you understand the concept of question marks, Swanny? They’re even smaller than small words, and easier to comprehend than changing laws through violence. Putz.
Add the fact that Democrat political apparatchiks were actively undermining the prosecutor to keep Tiller out of the courts.
Putz, indeed!
Just another troll that ignores the fact that his faction works through political violence and intimidation all the time. If they can’t get what they want honestly – to the barracades! Look at the reaction to prop 8 in Cali. As I’ve said before, the facts don’t matter to the left.
“Putz” shows restraint. Lex, you are being kind.
I’m one to place a bet that swanny would puke his guts out watching a partial birth abortion. I’ve found the “it’s not a life, it’s a choice” crowd to be woefully ignorant of the brutality of the act they so lovingly embrace.