The Anti-Life Mentality of our Culture

Earlier this week I noted the third anniversary of the Terri Schiavo murder. My blogging colleague Chelsea at Reflections of a Paralytic has an excellent post on the same subject. Being disabled herself, Chelsea takes these things personally:

In the wake of Terri’s death I heard many people say that they want to make it perfectly clear their intention to have their own feeding tube removed if they were ever in the same situation in order to avoid the conflict that erupted between the Schindler/Schiavo families. And because they would not want to be a burden on their families. This is the anti-life mentality of our culture, it is better to be dead than to live a life of hardship and suffering and it is better to bury a family member than to take the time to love and care for them.

Terri Schiavo was not in a coma and was not in a brain dead or “persistent vegetative state”. Terri was a severely handicapped young woman who suffered a life altering, not life ending, brain injury. Because of that many in our society, including her husband, concluded that Terri’s life was no longer worthy of being lived, though she was, in fact, “living”. This is the sentiment that is behind the push for euthanasia and the abortion of “unhealthy” unborn children.

Read more of Chelsea's post. She speaks with authority on this.

Mom and Dad Wanted Me Dead

This is bizarre.

A doctor can't be held liable for resuscitating a baby who was born without a heartbeat and survived with severe disabilities, the state Supreme Court says.

The baby's parents filed a malpractice lawsuit after the baby's 2004 birth. They claimed doctors in Vancouver, Wash., were negligent when they continued to resuscitate the baby for almost half an hour, after he was born without a heartbeat.

The parents also said the medical team should have gotten their consent before continuing to revive the baby.

But the Supreme Court justices say the doctor can't be held liable for failing to stop resuscitation efforts on a baby. [source]

More detail can be found in the Washington State Supreme Court opinion here. Nichole Stewart-Graves was 35 weeks pregnant in 2004 when she began having contractions. She went to the hospital with her husband, Todd Graves. Up to that point there had been no problems in the pregnancy. Nurses detected that the baby's heartbeat was failing and Nichole gave permission for an emergency C-section. She was then placed under anesthetic.

When the baby was born doctors could not detect any heartbeat and began working to resuscitate him. After 24 minutes the baby's heart began to beat. He survived but is permanently disabled with cerebral palsy, mental retardation and many other serious problems. He will require extensive care for his entire life. The parents named their baby boy "Liam."

The parents sued the doctor, the hospital, and everyone else in sight on the grounds that they should have let little Liam die. Yes, that's right - not "wrongful death" but "wrongful life." They say the doctors actually worked too hard to save their baby's life.

The court opinion is strange to read because Liam is, technically, the one filing the suit. His parents speak on his behalf. So you get odd sentences like "Liam made the same allegations as his parents regarding the lack of informed consent and negligence for continuing the resuscitation." Apparently, we are supposed to believe that Liam really wanted to die and the evil doctor should have just read his mind.

It is undeniably true that Liam will never have a normal life. Nevertheless, he has Life, and all life is a gift from God. It is not our place to give it or take it. Had God wanted Liam to die, then nothing the doctors did would have helped. The fact that he was saved suggests God wants Liam on this Earth - alive.

We see similar things when unborn babies are pre-natally diagnosed with conditions like Down's Syndrome. Parents often decide to abort such babies because they won't have "quality of life." This is the first step down a very slippery slope. Once we begin deciding that some lives just aren't worthwhile, where does it end? A lot of old people don't have much quality of life, either. How about poor people? Blind people? Mentally ill people? Where does it end?

Fortunately, in this case the Washington Supreme Court agreed that the doctors were not negligent. They were simply doing what doctors are supposed to do. Justice won in the end, but this case truly has no winners. Unlike some parents who develop a heroic love and dedication for disabled children, this couple clearly wishes their son had never been born. It is unclear to what degree they are involved in his care. It sure sounds like they regard him as a burden rather than a blessing.

If, someday, Liam is able to understand what happened, what will he think? Mom and dad wanted me to die? What a horrible way to go through a life that is already hard enough.

Hat tip: WWWtW

Wrong Twin Aborted

When prenatal tests revealed that one of her unborn twins had Down's Syndrome, a woman in Italy decided to abort the "defective" child and keep the healthy one. Doctors proceeded to abort the wrong child, apparently because the unwitting masses of fetal tissue changed position between the time of the ultrasound and the abortion procedure.

Now, some people would have interpreted this horrible event as a sign from above and amended their life. This mother did not; upon being informed of the mistake, she returned to the hospital and had the remaining child aborted, too. She now says her life has been ruined, and I'm sure it is. So were two other lives. We can trust they are now in a better place - no thanks to their earthly parents.

While all abortion is unacceptable, abortions undertaken for the specific purpose of killing children who are somehow disabled is particularly disgusting. People with Down's Syndrome are still people. If we permit people to be killed before birth because they are inconvenient and imperfect, by what logic do we forbid them from being killed after birth?

You may recall a similar case last March, also in Italy, where an infant thought to be deformed was aborted, only to be born alive and without the defect that inspired the abortion in the first place. The child died after six days.

Such efforts at population purity are nothing less than eugenics. This same mentality allowed the Nazis to define entire categories of people as non-human and systematically exterminate them. It's all a big word game. "We value all human life," they will say, without being too specific about how they define "human." For example, will these organisms be human? How will we know?

Think it can't happen here? Wrong; it already does. Watch this video. It is the only time I've ever seen Bill O'Reilly rendered speechless.

Hat tip: Leticia

Not Chopped Liver

Imagine you are very sick. After suffering for years, doctors say you need a liver transplant or you will die very soon. Amazingly, more than two dozen people volunteer to donate part of their own livers to you. You can take your pick, right? Sweet.

This is exactly what happened to Bishop William Weigand. He did not celebrate his good fortune. Instead, he worried about the risk to the donor. In most cases the liver will regenerate itself, but the donor still faces a small chance of complications.

Here is a story about Dan Haverty, the Sacamento firefighter who was finally chosen as donor for Bishop Weigand.

The bishop required that the donor have neither children nor parents to care for and be financially secure, in the event of disability or death. He insisted that any donor have the support of his entire family.

To guarantee such support, the Havertys called a family meeting with their parents, three adult children and grandchildren. They showed medical data, graphs and photos. They described hypotheticals.

One daughter-in-law wondered what would happen if one of his grandchildren needed a liver in the future and there was nothing left to give. Haverty's mother said she had lost two daughters, one to cancer and another in a plane crash. She could not face losing another child, she said.

"We trust in the Lord," Haverty assured the assembled family. "If I should die, that's the sacrifice we are willing to make."

Eventually, the family came to share that perspective, he says. "There was a bit of faith involved."

By the fall of 2004, Weigand was growing weaker by the day. He could no longer work full time and had to turn over some of his responsibilities to others. When saying Mass, he needed other people to help him stand or hold the chalice. The toxins had begun to affect even his mental acuity and made him dizzy. He got up to use the bathroom one night and fell down the stairs.

Meanwhile, the search for a donor was narrowing. In February 2005, the bishop phoned Haverty to say the fire chief had been chosen.

"The Lord puts suffering in some people's lives so other people have the opportunity to show love and compassion," Haverty recalls the bishop saying.

It was tough, even then, for Weigand to accept such a gift. He was awestruck by the parishioner's generosity but wondered if he should jeopardize another man's life. What if something happened to Haverty, he worried. That would be worse than dying himself. MORE

What amazing faith and sacrifice in both men. God honored them with a complete success. Doctors took 73% of Haverty's liver to implant in the Bishop, who had practically no functioning liver left. Now both men have livers that are about 90% of their original size. Read the whole story. It's inspiring.

Hat tip: Orthometer

Touch Her Dress And Be Healed!

If there was any doubt whether Nancy Pelosi has ambitions beyond being Speaker of the House, this ought to answer it:

“Science is a gift of God to all of us and science has taken us to a place that is biblical in its power to cure.”

Science is, of course, a wonderful thing and has greatly improved all our lives. But "biblical in its power to cure" sounds a wee bit more optimistic than mere humans ought to be. A good Catholic (hah!) like Ms. Pelosi should know this.

The subject Ms. Pelosi is discussing in the quote above is a new attempt by Congress to authorize federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. President Bush vetoed the last such bill and has said he will nix this one as well.

The controversy over ESCR involves a great deal of false information. The most common misunderstanding is that Bush has "banned" ESCR. He has not. Such research is perfectly legal in the United States. The argument is about whether the federal government should pay for it or not. No one is stopping scientists from carrying out ESCR if they can find other sources of funding.

Now stop and think for a minute. We are told that ESCR is the key to curing many painful and debilitating diseases. "The lame will be able to stand and walk" is one common claim. OK. Suppose this is true. Do you think people would be willing to pay for such a cure? Maybe pay a lot? Of course they would.

That being the case, if the cure really is just around the corner, why waste all this time and effort trying to get federal funding? Form your company, get backing from venture capitalists, and get to work. You are sitting on a gold mine.

This is, in fact, how most of our modern medical breakthroughs have been made. Private enterprise is a lot more efficient than government-funded research at actually getting things done. Investors zero in on the projects with the best chance of success, and if they are correct they get handsomely rewarded.

This is not happening with ESCR. Instead, people sit around moaning and groaning about how Bush is letting his religious beliefs stand in the way of scientific progress.

The fact is that scientists know that producing actual medical breakthroughs with ESCR is a very long shot. Big-money investors know it, too, so they aren't willing to gamble on ESCR. They will, however, be glad to let the taxpayers pick up the bill for research that may, once in a blue moon, actually turn out something useful. Biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies will then use this "free" information to pad their own profit margins.

Meanwhile, research using adult stem cells, umbilical cord cells, and other sources that do not involve the destruction of young humans, and that has already produced actual cures and saved real people, proceeds along slowly but surely, out of the limelight. This is where the real promise can be found, but we don't hear so much about it.

I am against ESCR because it involves the destruction of a human life. Yes, it's a very young human life, but we were all there once. ESCR is really nothing more than a form of cannibalism, wherein we consume the young of our species in order to save ourselves. (Here is a good overview of the ethical issues surrounding ESCR.)

However, even if you disagree with the ethical argument against ESCR, there remains the economic question. Where we should direct our limited resources? Do we really want to trust politicians to decide which medical projects are funded? Keep in mind these are the same people who run the Post Office so efficiently and the IRS so compassionately. Need I say more?

ESCR is, for lack of a better term, a fraud. It is a blatant attempt by wealthy investors to have taxpayers subsidize research they will, maybe, if it ever works, use to make themselves even wealthier. This alone is reason enough to oppose it. The fact that young humans must die in the process is another reason.

Unfortunately, the truth about ESCR is obscured behind so much smoke that most people don't understand what they are really supporting. Pelosi will get her way, eventually. Will cures follow? Probably not. What will follow is more death and destruction. We never seem to learn.

Awake After 19 Years

A man in Poland is awake after 19 years in a coma.

Railway worker Jan Grzebski, 65, fell into a coma after he was hit by a train in 1988.

"Now I see people on the streets with mobile phones and there are so many goods in the shops it makes my head spin," he told Polish television.

He credits his survival to his wife, Gertruda, who cared for him.

Doctors gave him only two or three years to live after the accident.

Mr. Grzebski's wife, Gertruda, cared for him all those years, moving him every hour to prevent bed sores. That's devotion. She obviously took her "til death do us part" vow seriously.

Contrast Mrs. Grzebski with Michael Schiavo, who also had an unconscious spouse with (allegedly) no hope of recovery. Within three years he was trying to withhold treatment for a potentially fatal urinary tract infection; clearly he did not wish to be troubled by caring for Terri. Eventually he succeeded in starving her to death. Nonetheless, her fight goes on.

Life can be just as mysterious as death. Why do some people go into these comatose or vegetative states, only to wake up years later, while others linger a painfully long time and then die naturally? We do not know.

Maybe we cannot know, because He who gives life for reasons of his own also takes life for reasons of His own. We aren't capable of understanding it, any more than a mouse can understand trigonometry. It is beyond our comprehension. What we do know is that we are expected to preserve life as much as we can, within our limited abilities. Mrs. Grzebski did so, and now she has her reward.

UPDATE: Here is a more detailed story from AP via AOL.

UPDATE 2: I see here that now there are conflicting stories about whether Mr. Grzebski was actually in a coma for 19 years or not. That is what BBC and AP say, and I can't find any record they have issued corrections. On the other hand, The Guardian apparently says he was injured and in a coma for only four years and has since been conscious. I don't know who is right, but to be fair I'm giving you the other version of the story.

Goodbye, Emilio

If you've been following the fate of baby Emilio Gonzales, it's over now. He passed away on Saturday, with his mother and other relatives surrounding him.

The next court hearing was scheduled for May 30, so there was never a final decision on whether he could be disconnected from life support. I suspect that is what the people involved probably wanted to happen. No one seemed to be in any great hurry to reach a resolution.

This story has, if nothing else, exposed to public view a Texas law that seriously needs to be re-thought. I don't have an answer, but there must be a better way to resolve situations like this one.

Rest in peace, Emilio. Now you are home.

Passing The Test

You must read this story.

Unable to conceive naturally, Elizabeth and Matt decided to adopt a baby from China. Within hours of seeing the 1-year-old girl for the first time, they noticed problems. Big problems: a tumor, spina bifida, brain damage, paraplegia.

We have a solution, said the Chinese orphanage officials: just pick out a different baby.

Months before, we had been presented with forms asking which disabilities would be acceptable in a prospective adoptee — what, in other words, did we think we could handle: H.I.V., hepatitis, blindness? We checked off a few mild problems that we knew could be swiftly corrected with proper medical care. As Matt had written on our application: “This will be our first child, and we feel we would need more experience to handle anything more serious.”

Now we faced surgeries, wheelchairs, colostomy bags. I envisioned our home in San Diego with ramps leading to the doors. I saw our lives as being utterly devoted to her care. How would we ever manage?

Yet how could we leave her? Had I given birth to a child with these conditions, I wouldn’t have left her in the hospital. Though a friend would later say, “Well, that’s different,” it wasn’t to me.

I pictured myself boarding the plane with some faceless replacement child and then explaining to friends and family that she wasn’t Natalie, that we had left Natalie in China because she was too damaged, that the deal had been a healthy baby and she wasn’t.

How would I face myself? How would I ever forget? I would always wonder what happened to Natalie.

I knew this was my test, my life’s worth distilled into a moment. I was shaking my head “No” before they finished explaining. We didn’t want another baby, I told them. We wanted our baby, the one sleeping right over there. “She’s our daughter,” I said. “We love her.”

"She's our daughter." What amazing love. There's more to the story; read it here.

Now, compare this to the parents who, based on nothing more than grainy ultrasound images, decide that their unborn child is not worthy of life and must be killed. Such so-called parents delude themselves into thinking that "it's for the best." No, it's not for the best. Yet people who would never be so rude as to reject a friend's gift are quick to reject the greatest gift of all: life itself.

Elizabeth and Matt passed their test. Will we pass ours?

Pro-Life, Sometimes

For many women and their partners, the decision to terminate a pregnancy after a prenatal diagnosis of a serious genetic defect can be harrowing, often coming after a painful assessment of their own emotional and financial resources.

And there is widespread support for such an option: 70 percent of Americans said they believe that women should be able to obtain a legal abortion if there is a strong chance of a serious defect in the baby, according to a 2006 poll conducted by the National Opinion Research Center. MORE

I can believe this. While other polls show most Americans call themselves pro-life, few have really thought it through and adopted a consistent view on the value of life.

Let's re-phrase what the 70% referenced above are saying.

"We believe life begins at conception, and all life must be protected - except for those lives that in our opinion may have a defect that could make life unpleasant. Such unborn life can be killed at the mother's discretion. However the mother's discretion ends when the defective baby is born. After then this life, while still unpleasant, must be protected."

If this seems to you like a pretty incoherent position, you can go to the head of the class. Once we start down the road of saying that some lives are worthy and others are not, it is very hard to know where to stop. How serious does the defect need to be before we are willing to execute the baby? Who decides? Why not wait until the baby is born so you can be sure what is wrong, and then kill it?

Life is life. If you believe it begins at conception, you have to protect it from that point forward. Otherwise you will slide down a slippery slope that ends in death - not yours, maybe, but the death of a human being. The victim won't even get the "due process" we give to condemned murderers.

If you're in the 70%, think about it. Think hard.

Truth To Power

Leticia at Causa Nostrae Laetitiae recounts a conversation she had with her Congressperson and an audience of retirees. She brought along her daughter who has Down's Syndrome. I think this is a wonderful story for Mother's Day - from a mother defending not only her only child, but others as well.

Right after the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban vote (he voted against the ban) I showed up a packed meeting he had with the wealthy senior citizens of Westhampton. I brought Christina, a toddler at that time, and they were vociferously detailing their worries about Social Security when we entered the room. What do they use their checks for, to pay their fees at the country club? I wondered. I thought they would never calm down enough for me to speak to the Congressman about abortion.

Then, Christina did an interesting thing, she began to giggle. A wave of attention, none of it positive, was focused on us, and angry eyes bored into us. I seized my advantage, and burst into the conversation, "Congressman Bishop, your constituents here seem to be upset by my daughter's laughter, so let me speak my piece, and I'll be out of your way."

Congressman Bishop nodded, and I brought Christina with me to the front of the room, partially out of fear of the other people in the room, and as a helpful prop for my talk.

"This week, you voted against a ban on Partial Birth Abortion, and I wanted to let you know that 90% of unborn babies with Down Syndrome are aborted, many late term as it takes a while to see the amnio results and schedule the abortion. This means each year, thousands of children like my daughter here, are cruelly killed in this procedure. Don't you think that my daughter here deserves a chance to live like the rest of us did?"

The Congressman was dumbfounded, and fumbled for words, while an irate constituent screamed, "Why don't you shut up and sit down?!"

I turned to Congressman Bishop and asked him, "Is that your opinion as well, that I should shut up and sit down?"

Naturally, he denied this, and I went on, "I see what my daughter is capable of, and the joy she has brought into my family's life, and I want to urge you to vote pro-life next time, and give these children a chance to live their parents' lives."

Another bitter old man, couldn't take it any more, and challenged me, "You Catholics always say that, but are you willing to pay for these children once they're born?"

"I never said I was a Catholic, but I'm glad it shows! " I replied cheerily, "To answer your question, my husband and I support about 25 of his family members back in El Salvador, and we're convinced that's enough."

Congressman Bishop had barely uttered a sound and the crowd was getting outright hostile, so I took my cue, and wrapped it up saying, "I am a teacher, and look out on classrooms with 30% fewer students thanks to legalized abortion for the last 30 years. If you're worried about your Social Security checks, thank abortion.You've aborted the young workers who would be contributing to this bankrupt system."

By now the crowd was dangerously riled, and I sent out my parting shot over my shoulder, as I left the room, "You are all uncomfortable, because in your heart of hearts, you know I'm right!"

Bravo, Leticia. You are a brave woman and we need more like you. Check out her blog for more good stuff.

Lives Worth Living

I remember watching a movie when I was a kid, possibly War of the Worlds (the original, not the Tom Cruise remake) wherein alien monsters were attacking Earth. A family cowered in their home as the killing machines drew closer. The father had a pistol in one hand and his young son in the other.

As they heard they door opening, he cocked the gun. He did not aim for the invaders because he knew it was futile. He was, instead, about to shoot his wife and children to spare them the alien tortures. Fortunately it turned out to be human rescuers, not aliens. All survived. Nevertheless, the very thought that a father might do such a thing shook me up. Was he doing the right thing? What would my dad have done? What would I do?

These aren't easy questions until we remember that life is a gift from God. It is not our place to reject that gift; we must respect it until God brings it to its natural end. I will probably protest if He decides my Earthly ending is to be vaporized by aliens. What I should do, however, is have faith that He will be merciful and bring me to eternal life on the other side, whatever the manner of my death. Likewise for my family. To short-circuit that process is

I recalled that movie after writing this post about a real father killing some of his children under far less noble circumstances. I had also just written about the agonizing death of babies who survive abortion attempts. For some reason, this week there was a small flurry of similar stories. Here is a quick roundup for you.

The Anchoress has a long post about the baby Zeke. I linked to the family's slide show last month. Anchoress adds some touching thoughts and a personal story of her own.

Gazizza shares with us the story of a British clinic that screens embryos for cosmetic defects. Not life-threatening conditions, mind you, but things like hair color and squinty eyes. See something you don't like? Abort this one and try again. Parents who go to this place apparently thing it's worth killing several kids to make sure they get one who is just right. LifeSite covers the same story.

The New York Times had a story about prenatal testing for Down's Syndrome. Fully 90% of unborn children shown to have this condition are aborted. Families of Down's children are trying to fight back by sharing their own experience. Life is different, they say, but no less rewarding. Rod Dreher has more thoughts.

Fr. Erik at Orthometer links to an inspiring video about a baby born with severe disabilities.

Zippy at WWWW has some thoughts on why people choose abortion over adoption.

Finally, the Emilio Gonzalez case here in Austin is still ongoing. This week the baby's court-appointed guardian agreed with doctors that life support is futile. The next hearing is scheduled for May 30th. Austin Bishop Gregory Aymond also agrees. More of his thoughts here. National Review reports there may be more going on than meets the eye. Lot of comments after Mark Shea linked to the story.

My initial reaction on the Gonzalez case was that the mother should let him go. That was two months ago, and his condition seems to have neither improved nor worsened. So now I'm just confused. Please add Catarina Gonzales to your prayers. She needs peace and wisdom to discern the right course - as do we all.

The Incredible Shrinking Father

Here is a fascinating article about the alarming consequences of artificial insemination in our culture. As often seems to be the case, lawyers are involved.

You’d think that we had enough problems keeping fathers around in this country, what with out-of-wedlock births (over a third of all children are born to unmarried women, and, in most cases, the fathers will fade from the picture) and divorce (the average divorced dad sees his kids less often than he takes his car in for an oil change). But these days, American fatherhood has yet another hostile force to contend with: artificial insemination. This may sound a tad overheated. After all, AI has been around, by some accounts, for over a century. And the number of kids born through the procedure each year, though steadily growing, remains quite small relative to the millions of babies conceived, as we can now say completely without irony, the old-fashioned way.

But aided by a lucrative sperm-bank service industry, an increasingly unmarried consumer base, a legal profession and judiciary geared toward seeing relationships through a contractual lens, and a growing cultural preference for individual choice without limits, AI is advancing a cause once celebrated only in the most obscure radical journals: the dad-free family. There are multiple ironies in this unfolding revolution, not least that the technology that allows women to have a family without men promotes the very male carelessness that leads a lot of women to become single mothers in the first place. And fatherless families are a delicate proposition, as AI families are discovering, since all the scientists’ technology and all the lawyerly contracts can’t take human nature out of human reproduction.

Read the whole story.

The Happy Killers

This so-called "man" just killed his two sons, with their mother's approval. Here is what he had to say for himself and his wife: "We don't feel guilty. We don't feel ashamed. We're not even really sad..."

Cold-blooded murderer? Legally speaking, no. They weren't really his "sons" yet. They were just "midterm fetuses," two of four such objects that had mysteriously appeared in his wife's body. There being room for only two fetuses to co-exist safely, the other two had to go.

Did these fetuses just show up out of nowhere? No. In fact, these people went through enormous expense and effort to create their children via in-vitro fertilization (IVF). They allowed a doctor to implant five young humans in the mother's womb, gambling that not all would survive but that some would. Four did. Two of these would have to die in order for the others, and the mom, to avoid complications and possibly death.

Which two? He admits it was an agonizing choice. There were two boys and two girls to choose from. One of the deciding factors was that boys are more likely to have Down's Syndrome when the father is this man's age, 47. Since we know that people with Down's Syndrome are not really human and their lives have no value, the boys drew the short end of the stick.

The author tries to tell us what an agonizing decision it was. I'm sure it was not easy. But the fact is he asked for it. He and his wife knew when they tried IVF that there was a high chance of multiple pregnancy. They knew complications were likely and that the doctors might recommend abortion. They knew the father's age created the above-average potential for genetic abnormalities. They forged ahead anyway. They created life knowing they would probably have to end it as well. And they were OK with this.

It is truly sad that many people who want to have children find themselves physically unable to do so in the normal way. Is IVF really the answer? If your ultimate goal is to have children, why go to all the expense and risks of IVF when thousands of kids wait for years to be adopted?

The answer, of course, is selfishness. Parents like these want their own children. They want to be pregnant, have baby showers, go to the hospital, and have kids that are genetically "theirs." These things are so important to them that they will wait years, spend thousands of dollars, and possibly still remain barren, before they will consider adopting a child who is not "theirs."

So we end up with thousands of kids rotting away in foster care or institutions, and with excess fetuses being killed by their selfish parents, who pay fertility doctors massive amounts of money to do the dirty work. Exactly where is the logic in this?

Answer: there is no logic. There is only evil. Please don't be part of it.


Hat tip: Mark Gordon

The Right Choice

Linked below is a slide show with audio narration by a young mother. During her pregnancy the child was diagnosed with a rare condition that would almost certainly be fatal soon after birth. She and her husband decided to carry the child to term and spend whatever time they could with him.

He lived 35 minutes and died in his mother's arms.

Many, many people who are "pro-choice" will be quick to say this couple made the wrong choice. They don't think so. Yes, they could have aborted the child. They did not. Why? Because life, however short and hopeless it may be, is still life. Every life has value. Every life is a gift from God. Every life affects every other life. This family will show you why.

Have some tissues ready and click here.

H/T: J-Walking.

Who Wants To Live Forever?

FOR four days last December, America’s pleasure dome in the desert, Las Vegas, played host to a convention dedicated to the proposition that growing old is “a treatable medical condition.”

Booths advertising vitamins, hormones and pharmaceutical drugs, along with an array of oxygenating or detoxifying paraphernalia, filled the exhibition hall of the Venetian Resort Hotel Casino. Lectures and workshops were offered on a bevy of “wellness” topics, including the alluring idea that human growth hormone could be deployed to beat back old age.

Several thousand attendees, mostly physicians, crowded the Venetian, a testament to what analysts say is now an industry that snares $50 billion a year in sales by catering to Americans’ obsession with looking and feeling younger. MORE

We all want the fountain of youth, don't we? I, for one, am being dragged into middle age kicking and screaming. This is an area where it's hard to find the right balance. If you are a Christian, you believe life is a gift from God. It follows that we must take care of this gift and do all we can to preserve it. Exercise, eat well, take vitamins, see the doctor, etc. All well and good.

On the other hand, we have to recognize that life isn't forever. Nor should we want it to be, if we have faith that something much better awaits us after we die. We know this intellectually; but practically speaking, most of us still fear death. This drives some people to extraordinary effort to extend their lives as illustrated in the article above.

This unwillingness to accept the death sentence we are all given at birth can drive people to commit all kinds of evil acts: harvesting unborn babies to provide nutrients they think will extend their lives, for example. Exactly how this differs from cannibalism is not clear.

I think most people, even atheists, know that death is inevitable. There are those, however, who somewhere deep down think they can beat the odds. If we can just cure this disease, if we can just regenerate these organs, if we can just continue our research, maybe we don't have to die. Maybe we can live forever. Maybe we can be gods.

They will never admit it, but I'm convinced there are people who follow this line of thinking. These folks are destined for disappointment. Science will not save them, and they will not accept the One who can save them.

Someday they will listen, of course. By then it will be too late.

More HPV Follies

The Cato Institute has a great story about the HPV vaccine that our political heroes are trying to make mandatory for all little girls. It is far from clear that the vaccine will have the beneficial impact that Merck claims, and it may even have the opposite result. The vaccine has had no long-term testing so we really have no idea what will happen a few years down the road.

Risk assessment is not easy, particularly when, as is the case with Gardasil, the long term effects of a vaccine are totally unknown. Women who participated in the drug trials were followed for an average of less than three years. Consider this totally hypothetical example: what if 90% of all school age girls are vaccinated within the next five years and then ten or twenty years from now it is discovered that the vaccine made them sterile or actually caused them to get a different type of cancer than what they were vaccinated against? Or worse yet, because of the difference in sample size, once millions of 9 and 10-year olds were vaccinated instead of just a couple of hundred, one percent of the girls had side effects severe enough to cause brain damage or death? MORE

The Useful Dead V

Another creative use for the remains of your dearly departed: donate them to Body Worlds so they can be plasticized and then posed for public viewing in a variety of imaginative positions. What better way to teach the kids about anatomy?

What remains unclear is where these bodies came from. One report says that many of the bodies at the Body Worlds exhibition in Chicago appear to have bullet holes at the base of the skull. This makes me suspect they are probably Chinese prisoners who were executed. Criminal though they may have been, somehow I doubt these people volunteered to have their remains paraded in front of the world in this way. Nor did they want their organs sold for profit.

I haven't been to this exhibit. Maybe it is tastefully done, though it's hard to imagine how. In any case, it's more evidence that we live in a ghastly reincarnation of the Roman Empire. What will be next?

An Agonizing Choice II

This story that I mentioned recently is still unfinished. Emilio remains alive and, with the help of various pro-life and disabled rights groups, has won a reprieve from having his life support turned off.

Upon further thought, this Texas law that allows hospitals to terminate life support whether the patient's family likes it or not probably should be reconsidered. What I haven't seen in the media reports is any indication that the baby has any chance of recovery. It sounds like even the mother accepts this - she simply wants him to continue receiving treatment until he dies. She believes he is aware and fighting for life, while physicians say he is comatose.

I don't have an answer to this dilemma, which is obviously very hard for everyone involved. What we can know is that God gave life to this child, and will take this life back when He is ready. Nothing any human can do will change that fact.

Mandatory Safe Sex III

Today our political supermen here in Texas, namely the House of Representatives, voted to prevent Governor Rick Perry from enacting his order for mandatory vaccination of 6th grade girls for the sexually transmitted HPV virus. See previous post.

This proposal goes nowhere unless the Senate concurs, which they may not, but in either case it doesn't matter. All Perry has to do is veto the bill and the legislature will be powerless to stop him. Theoretically they can overrule his veto, but unless the Senate moves quickly (good luck on that!) the session will expire and the legislature won't be back to consider an override for another two years. (We have a rather strange system here in Texas. Getting the legislature out of town as fast as possible usually serves us well, but it may backfire this time.)

Meanwhile, Merck's lobbying effort is bearing fruit in New Mexico and Virginia, which are close to passing similar requirements to inject all young girls with $400 doses of Gardisil.

In an earlier post I pointed out that unlike chicken pox and other such childhood diseases, there is zero risk of HPV being spread in the classroom unless the students are having sex there. I wonder if these kids were vaccinated?

An Agonizing Choice

Here is a very distressing story from close to home. A 16-month-old baby at Children's Hospital in Austin is suffering from a rare conditions that doctors say is hopeless. He is currently kept alive only by a respirator. The mother wants treatment to continue. The hospital intends to turn off the respirator if no other hospital can be found to take the child.

This is a very difficult situation. The salient question is whether there is any hope of recovery. I've never heard of this particular disease, but it sounds like the physicians all agree it will be fatal eventually. Unlike this case, they have been able to examine the child extensively before reaching conclusions.

On the other hand, life itself is a fatal disease. We are all born with a death sentence hanging over our heads - a sentence that will be executed at a time and in a manner of God's choice, not our own. This is why when we have to choose, our default answer should always be in favor of life.

Yet when prolonged life involves intense pain and suffering, the continued use of extraordinary means like respirators at some point becomes worse than the alternative. I'm speculating here, but it sounds like the mother in this case is having difficulty accepting that there is no hope for her baby. The article says she is single so she may not have much family support.

A couple of other factors are also interesting. First, it appears that no other hospitals are willing to accept the child. I would think, even if the mother is destitute and on welfare, that if there were any signs of a possible recovery that some hospital, somewhere, would agree to help. The fact that this isn't happening suggests the doctors are correct.

Furthermore, Children's Hospital is part of the Seton Healthcare Network, a Catholic charity. Not all Catholic groups are consistently pro-life but in the past Seton has held firm with church teaching about life issues, even at enormous financial cost. I suspect they are trying to do so in this case as well.

So it sounds like this baby will die, and sadly that is probably the best thing. He will then be delivered from his pain in a way human medicine cannot achieve. The mother will grieve as Mary did at the foot of the Cross.

Yet Mary saw her Son alive again. So too will this mother see little Emilio again, freed from the machines and cords that bind him to this life. May God grant her peace until then.

UPDATE: Emilio gets a reprieve.