Wednesday, October 16, 2013

questions better not asked

Should Mothers Be Forced to Bear Disabled Children Against Their Will?

Beth Reinhard
National Journal
10 October 2013

"Abbey, a nurse who comes from a conservative Christian family in Oklahoma, never labeled herself "pro-choice" or "pro-life." Now she pictures thrusting her sonogram and medical files at the lawmakers who voted for the abortion ban. "Would you let your own baby die slowly like that?" she would ask them. "If your wife was in these circumstances, would you force her to carry that baby?" She adds now, "I don't think I could have gone on any longer, and any woman who was forced to would have lost her mind.""


ADDENDUM 19 MAY 2016 (with edit for clarity set in 23 May 2016)
Readers are visiting this post of late, but the link to National Journal does not allow access. I have written to the organization in the hope of gaining a perma-link, but National Journal no longer allows any readers except those who are subscribed as members.

I am very sensitive to copyright, which is why this blog always gives links back to the original. As the organization is not able to issue a perma-link, and neither the Wayback Machine nor the Internet Archives have preserved the article, the original will remain out of reach. I leave what is posted here, however, as my own [brief] commentary follows, and enough of a quote from the original article to suggest the tone and topic of what was originally said by the article's author.

Readers who would like to go the extra step to attempt to locate an original copy should contact National Journal to see if they issue reprints to individuals (or whether the membership rule holds there, too) and/or consult their library for help in procuring a back-copy. I do not know how the Library of Congress is conducting such requests now, but suspect that somewhere, a copy of the article can be found.

Due to copyright issues, however, it would not be anything I could set out here. I leave further inquiry, with apologies for the loss of the link, to interested readers.

Contact info follows:
Na­tion­al Journ­al
The Wa­ter­gate
600 New Hamp­shire Ave, NW
4th Floor
Wash­ing­ton, DC 20037

Fax: 202-833-8069


12 APRIL 2016
New Study on Defective Prenatal Genes Healing Themselves

I am reblogging this story [the National Journal article] to make a point. It is an article I was not able to finish reading. I well know the stories that so easily beguile young girls and women: many there are; this is only another one.

The keenly wrought emotional impact, set to outweigh any other interpretation but the one set out on the page...

Places there are, and widening, where people are rendering themselves incapable of hearing Truth.

This is one of them.

I am old enough to have not had ultrasound when my babies were conceived. It was available, and even becoming a popular question: is it a boy or a girl?

But still novelty, rather than norm.

I knew then, as I know now, that this new science would open up a Pandora's box of choices that did not need to be set out on the table. It would require answers to questions that did not need to be asked. Yes, many babies are saved via medical intervention gained by peering into the womb at the not-yet-born.

But I do not know that such excuses the way we too readily now allow medical tests to demand choices of who will live and who must die.

With a different heart (or understanding), perhaps this poor woman might have cherished the days God had given her with that child who was not to live.

God is, after all, in charge of who lives and dies.

Not science. Not mothers...

But for the very grieving of her experience, some things can't be said to this woman, just like not telling a parent whose teen-ager has died, and all her organs were donated to others in need...

You don't tell them the truth about how organ donations are done...

No comments:

Post a Comment