Which Came First The Abortion Or The Birth?

       Grrrr…I am a bit torn on this news item; whether to feel more anger or sadness.  It seems that a young 18 year old woman found out that she was pregnant.  She went to a clinic to have an abortion and was given medicine to dialate her cervix to prepare for an abortion procedure.  Before the doctor could perform the abortion…the medication caused her to deliver her baby daughter at just 23weeks of pregnancy.

       A clinic owner allegedly came in and cut the umblical cord and put the child who was struggling to breathe into a red plastic biohazard bag and threw the child in the trash…all as the mother watched in horror.  Allegedly a doctor came in and gave her some medicine to calm her down and sent her home in shock.  The police were called and the child’s remains were identified by DNA as being related to the mother.  Now the mother has sued the doctor and the clinic where the delivery/abortion took place; the doctor has allegedly lost his license.

         This procedure took the life of a human baby almost three years ago.  That child would be walking, talking, singing it’s abc’s , potty training…and maybe even going to pre-school now.  She would be making her mother or another mother figure (she could have been adopted by another mother) mother’s day cards in May…she was not a blob of flesh like so many of these clinics try to tell young women.  She would be a daughter, and a granddaughter; if she could.

        The mother allegedly has said that she changed her mind about the abortion, once she saw her daughter  alive; now she is traumatized by the memory of watching her child struggle for breathe and being tossed away like a bag of garbage.   I am sure that the legal question was did the abortion come first/or the birth…was the child actually born alive?  Testing supposedly revealed that the child did actually breathe, so that means that she was born alive.

        So, who is to blame for this child’s death?  Is it the clinic owner, who by the way did not have a license to practice medicine allegedly?  Or was it the doctor who was not present?  Was it the mother who went in for an abortion in the first place?  Is it society who allows abortion in the first place?  Do we blame the makers of contraception for possibly having failed the mother and father of the child?  Who exactly is at fault?  I say, it is all of the above; at least morally, if not legally. 

        First of all, I believe that abortion is wrong.  I think that if it is true that a clinic owner, who was not a medical doctor, did what has been alledged, then they are also at fault.  I think if the doctor perscribed the medication that caused her to go into labor and deliver a live child that was indeed tossed away in a plastic bag when it was struggling to breath…they that doctor is also wrong.  Was there contraception used in the first place?  I dont know.  I do know that if the teenaged mother was having sex..she should have understood the consequences of her actions that resulted in a pregnancy and that by going to have an abortion…that that child’s death was a direct result of having medication that was designed to result in the death of the child; it should not have shocked her that the child died as a result of taking medication designed to cause said abortion.  Is society at fault here?  Yes, because we allow these things to happen …because we don’t stand up and scream bloody murder that it happens every day around the world. 

        Which came first, the  abortion or the birth?  Does it really matter at this point regarding this particular child?  No, it died needlessly.  If that mother was truly horrified by this situation…then maybe some good can come out of it by her lawsuit, by her speaking out…maybe even by doing a special service announcement on television or in the schools. 

         It is outrageous.  Yes, that child was only 23weeks in the womb of it’s mother…and yes, it may not have survived even had the clinic called for medical help or intervention for that baby…it was pre-mature…not by nature’s designs but by mankinds design.  However, it may have had a fighting chance if it had not been aborted or if it had been taken to a neo-natal unit.  Life is precious…dont abort.  That mother will relive those moments for the rest of her life.  The child didn’t get to have a rest of it’s life. 

Advertisement

Read Full Post »

Standard Operating Procedures (Trashed at Guantanamo Bay)

        Guantanamo Bay or Gitmo, as it is often referred to, has been infamous since it was turned into a detention center for suspected terrorists.   Those who have been detained there have been allegedly branded as enemy combatants to the United States.   Now there are questions regarding the standard operating procedures; have they been trashed to get confessions?

           Some people feel that the rights of the detainees have been violated since the Bush administration stated that the Geneva Conventions protection did not have to be provided to the prisoners.  The US Supreme court disagreed with the Bush administration and future prisoners will NOW be afforded those protections.  The question is, what happens to those already in custody?  Those in custody have to prepare some kind of defense if they hope to get released. 

         In the meantime, much concern has been raised about those in legal limbo in the detention center. There are some detainees who could be released if the US could find countries willing to take them.   After all, what country is going to want to take in someone who has been accused of terrorism, whether it was proven or not?   Some detainees have already been released; but, many are still awaiting trial. 

            Questions have been raised about some of the interrogation techniques used to get confessions.  Were the confessions legitimate; or, were they obtained because of abusive or harsh treatment during questioning?  What if a person truly was guilty of the charges…but, the evidence was gotten because of hard interrogation techniques…is that acceptable; after all, some of the crimes alleged are pretty horrific?  Or, as a “civilized nation” are we bound to provide “humane” conditions; do the ends justify the means?

        Lawyers charged with providing legal representation for their clients are alledging that a standard operating procedures manual from the Pentagon had instructions to “destroy or trash” hand written notes or documents from the interrogations; in case the interrogators were called to testify, regarding harsh treatment of those kept in the detention center.  The lawyers claim that not having those handwritten notes makes representing their clients difficult because it is hard to prove that their “client’s confessions” were gotten in an intimidating way or through an abuse of power.

       If evidence has been suppressed by the government…that carries serious legal consequences for anyone in this situation.  While terrorism is a huge concern and we all want those involved in it to be apprehended…we have to examine the limits to the methods that we allow interrogators to use to get that information. 

          Detainees proven to be guilty, without a shadow of doubt, of alleged terrorist activities should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  That is why it is so very important about the way the information is gathered….we wouldn’t want a true terrorist to get away with it legally, because of an illegal method of gathering that evidence.

           Where should the line be drawn between the war on terrorism and humane treatment of suspected criminals?  Or should we have limits at all?  If we don’t have limits…how do we discern the difference between ourselves and those considered to be terrorists?   What about national security; what if releasing some of that information jeparodizes the safety of American citizens?  These are not simple questions, nor are the answers easy to come up with.  What do you think?

Read Full Post »