Seeing Hope (6): Grayson James Walker and the value of a life

Heather Walking was preparing for the arrival of her third child when, sixteen weeks into the pregnancy, her baby was diagnosed with Anecephaly, a fatal birth defect. In spite of the news, she carried her baby, named Grayson, to term, and was determined to keep Grayson's birth and short life joyful for her and her family. Read their story here.

"You know, my son lived almost eight hours, and he's already done in eight hours what I could never do in a hundred lifetimes, and that's awesome." - Patrick Walker (Grayson's father)

When Heather posted photos of Grayson onto her Facebook page, the pictures were deleted and Heather was banned from Facebook - but she has gotten a tonne of support and is determined to stop Grayson's life from being censored! Just an all-around heartwarming story; I bawled my eyes out reading about Grayson and the love he was surrounded with in his short life.

Who decides who dies?

Hassan Rasouli with daughter, Mojgan, and wife, Parichehr Salasel

The Rasouli Case is creating a storm in Canada. Hassan Rasouli fell into a coma after brain-surgery complications in October 2010. One month later, the medical team caring for him determined that he was in a persistent vegetative state, and told his family that the best course of action would be to remove his ventilator and feeding tube. His family disagreed. Rather than referring to the Consent and Capacity Board, as is usually the procedure, the medical team took the Rasouli family to court. The case has worked its way all way up to the Supreme Court, with the doctors arguing that it should be their decision alone on whether or not to continue treatment.

In the meantime, Hassan Rasouli has shown signs of consciousness, vindicating the Rasouli family. However, many people still believe that Hassan Rasouli should be starved to death - in spite of his family's objection, in spite of his marked improvement, and in spite of his religious beliefs. That this is an issue is a frightening reflection on Canadian views of palliative care and patient autonomy, and every Canadian should be paying attention to the outcome of this case.

Go to Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, who has intervener status on this case, for a great analysis.
Read a recent article from the Toronto Sun.

Solidarity in the pro-choice vs. pro-life communities

Pro-choice:

 

Pro-life:

China's War on Women: Quotes from the Culture of Death

I was browsing through the Women's Rights Without Frontiers website, when I came across the video below, where activist Reggie Littlejohn discusses the effect forced abortions and sterilizations have had on Chinese women.

What I wanted to highlight were the comments on this video; most of the recent comments are supportive of these practices. Reading them, it just made me realize the strength of the aptly-called "culture of death" in our society. That the same people who cry "Respect A Woman's Right to Choose" can come out in favor of brutally forcing women to abort wanted children just boggles the mind. I wrote yesterday about how depressing the abortion debate can be, and today it is just more depressing than ever. I never thought pro-lifers would have to argue against forced abortions.

Emphasis in the comments below is my own:

"Somebody needs to control the rabid infestation that is Chinamen and women. Its either they die this way or grow up in poverty and die of starvation. Leaving this horny population unchecked will create far more problems than having a women be punished for breaking the law. Its tough, but you should of realized that before you went and got pregnant for the nth time."
-LOLURCATS

"First you have to understand the overpopulation problem in China"
-royalsociety97

"load of crap"
-minimouse0285

"[...] The reality is for a long time China has [had] trouble maintaining it's enormous population. Unfortunately [people] don't understand the situation in China, and how bad overpopulation is over there. If China revoked it's one child policy and allow the [population] to grow out of control, there is no way this can be sustained. As a Chinese national I don't like this policy either. But unfortunately there are no other options available."
"... millions of people will starve to death. Just look at how bad it is over in India. Their population has exploded and have grew to rival China. Poverty grips the country more than any other place with millions starving to death every year. But at least they don't have any forced abortions. I wonder if this woman would still be talking about being pro life and condemning all the forced abortions if millions of people in China start starving because of overpopulation problems?"
-barbiquearea

"Blah, blah, blah. The fact is these women are not following the LAW.
Follow the law and they would not be forced to abort. 7,000,000,000 is too many people on this Planet. China is overpopulated - there are not enough resources, nor is there an adequate distribution system to adequately supply food, medicine, etc to the millions of poor people. Why should a child be born and then forced to starve? That is absolute cruelty. Better to abort than to starve ... it to death."

"... Forced violence? The fetus has no clue, dude.
You would rather the child be born and then starve to death, or die from disease? That is not compassionate or intelligent. That makes absolutely no sense.
Death from starvation. Yep, that's the answer (end sarcasm).
Overpopulation is a reality. The grace of god is NOT."
"... China is doing the right thing in limiting population growth. [...] Go out [and] MULTIPLY (fuck like rats) until there are no resources left to sustain us? What a JERK. You are blinded by Bible darkness and superstition. Grow up..."

-Jacob12Rivers

"I don't agree how they do it but I do agree that there needs to be a limit of how many children a family can have."
"I think that there should be a max of 2 children per family everywhere. One day this earth will be over populated. There needs to be a limit or I fear it will be the end of our species.
-FutureScience2012

"don't want a one child policy? don't want forced abortions? stop fucking breeding."
-CowieMooCowo87

"[They] need to follow the rules. There is a real need to limit the birth rate in these areas. You are a bleeding-heart. If they followed the rules, there would be no need to force them to practice self-control and use protection. You are a stupid woman. You need to see the bigger picture."
"SO true. OVERPOPULATION is no joke. When there are tough financial times, humans will kill to survive. We need to limit the birth rate world wide."
-angie0009able

"[They] are NOT following the rules. If kids are born and there is overcrowding, shortages of resources including food, water, medical care and the children become [malnourished], sick and die; who is responsible? They know the rules and they selfishly ignore them.

The one-child rule was adopted for a reason. Stop being a religious moron."
"But what happens when we reach critical mass?
What happens when there is a serious problem that damages or disrupts the food chain?
You do know there are starving children around the world, because of food shortages, don't you.
Food resources are NOT plentiful. That's one reason why China has adopted the one-child policy. You need to get your head out of the sand and face reality. There aren't enough jobs now for people everywhere. This is one we are seeing protests and chaos."
-marcusbronson

"I see the problem with forced abortions, which can be a real psychic torture to some women, but someone mind telling me what's the problem with forced sterilization?

After you get 1 or 2 children forced sterilization can only be right..."
-UNNAM3D82

You can read a good analysis on the acceptance of forced abortion from LifeNews: "Pro-Abortion Groups Still Unfazed by Forced Abortions in China"

Relevant quote (emphasis my own):

"Investigations of population control policies reveal an invisible hand of Western elites.  Great Britain recently gave $268 million to India even after being warned that the program commits mass coerced sterilizations.  UNFPA, whose grants paid for training and equipment like computers to calculate birth quotas, praised China’s one-child policy.  Gill Greer, director of IPPF, which includes the China Family Planning Association as a member, said adopting the population 'policy is very conducive to China’s development.'"

Read another great analysis from The National Post: "Chen Guangcheng, China's One Child Policy, and Abortion's Slippery Slope"

Quote of the Week: "He is a hero in the eyes of women"

Chai Ling's Testimony Before the House of Foreign Affairs' Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights:

Chai LIng, the founder of All Girls Allowed,
nominated twice for the Nobel Peace Prize
following her leadership role in the Tiananmen
Square student movement in 1989.

"[I]t grieves me to hear Chen dismissively referred to as 'a single guy'. He is one man; it is true. But he is a symbol - a hero - in the eyes of women, children, and the poor in China. Why? Because he defended them when it was costly, and when no one else would. [...] Often missing from last week's news stories was the cause that defined Chen Guangcheng's work, and led to his imprisonment. [...] The One-Child Policy formally sanctions violence against women. Chen knew this. Chinese authorities jailed him in 2006 after he filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of women who had undergone forced abortions and sterilizations because of the Policy. [...] If you are concerned that such a course is not realistic or pragmatic enough, I humbly ask you to do what is right. It was not economically pragmatic for William Wilberforce to seek an end to the British slave trade. It was not expedient for Martin Luther King to speak out against injustice and then land in a Birmingham jail. Ronald Reagan was not acting with calculated diplomacy when he said, 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.' I can think of many instances in history where men and women sacrificed pragmatism for the sake of higher principle. Somehow they invariably ended up on the right side of history. I hope that you will stand on the right side of history in confronting the injustices of our time."

Read more at All Girl's Allowed

Opposing View of the Week: "Reopen the abortion debate?" from This Magazine

This is an article by Kyle Dupont on re-opening the abortion debate (because, of course, people seem to think this debate has been closed these past two decades).

His opinion:

"If this country were ever to allow restrictions to be implemented on a women's choice over her own body, we would be taking one giant leap backwards."

Right. Because being the only country in the world with absolutely no laws restricting abortion is just so progressive. It would seem, however, that the rest of the world does not agree.

In spite of this, he does think that the abortion debate should see the light of day (emphasis mine):

"We live in a democratic society where issues are openly discussed and voted on by the individuals we have elected into power. [...] It would be wrong and dangerous not to reopen the debate in a democratic nation."

Kudos to Mr. Dupont!

There are a few things about this article, however, that I want to specifically address. Mr. Dupont makes the point that with major advances in medical science and maternal care, the face of the abortion debate has changed. He asks:

"What happens when we reach the point when we can find out with certainty that a child will grow up to have Parkinson, ALS, or Alzheimer's? Is it humane to let the fetus survive only to live a life of unspeakable pain and suffering?"

First of all, I cannot even believe anyone is asking this question. If it is not humane to "allow" (because we are, apparently, the arbitrators of life and death) someone to survive if they will suffer later, we should just kill everyone because, guess what, at some point we are all going to suffer! And before you jump in and start crying about how I would think differently if I knew someone who has a horrible disease like Alzheimer's - I do. My Godfather. And he may be suffering now, but he isn't yet suffering unspeakably and, in fact, he is still able to smile, laugh, converse, and participate in life. And he has had an amazing life so far, with 2 beautiful children, one adorable grandchild, a loving family, and a distinguished career in business. I just don't understand how the fact that he is now ill somehow erases the entirety of the rest of his life, which was (and often still is) filled with incredible joy.
 
The real question is: how can we deny our fellow human beings the chance at life, love, happiness, and self-determination based on the knowledge that at some point in their life they will suffer? How is that fair? How does that make sense? Why aren't we instead asking: "how can we cure these diseases, mitigate the suffering of those afflicted in the meantime, and show our fellow human beings that we are here with them and for them"? When did our focus shift from helping and curing those who are suffering, to eliminating those who are suffering instead? Why is the elimination of those who are ill seen as a "cure" by so many people? By that logic, we should also kill anyone living in abject poverty ... but of course, we do not! Why? Because killing those who are suffering does not solve the problem! Killing does not stop poverty, nor does it cure Parkinson's, ALS, or Alzheimer's. And, in fact, many people who are suffering are still happy to be alive. Since that is the case, how can we be so arrogant to think that we can decide for others whether or not their lives are worth living?

Next he asks:

"Female feticide is a regular occurrence in China and India where boys are the preferred sex - and is now occurring in North America. Should parents be allowed to choose the sex of their child?" 

Quite simply, no. It is discrimination based on gender, and after the women's suffrage movement, I would have thought most people agree with the idea that discrimination based on gender is not alright. According to UN statistics, there are about 100 million girls missing due to gender selection. Girls are being targeting for the simple reason that boys are considered an asset, while they are seen as a liability. How exactly is this okay?

"I don't know the answer to any of these questions. Nobody does."

Well I do. Groups like "All Girls Allowed" do. Activists like Chen Guangcheng and Reggie Littlejohn do. Doctors, nurses, scientists, and medical researchers, who all strive tirelessly to cure and treat those with illnesses like Alzheimer's, do. Individuals who live with debilitating diseases do. And I thank Mr. Dupont for supporting the "re-opening" of the abortion debate, so that their voices can finally be heard by all Canadians.

Conviction

Secular Pro-life and Bad Catholic have both recently blogged about something that has been bothering me for awhile. How can we, as pro-lifers, go about our daily lives knowing that millions of our fellow human beings are being brutally killed every single day? Not only that, but in Canada, my tax dollars are paying for these atrocities. And yet I still pay taxes, and I happily take advantage of everything else my tax dollars pay for.

How can we pick just one day to protest and, after a few hours, go home feeling satisfied since more people came than last year?

Why aren't there more people who are willing to passionately
witness against abortion? Why am I not more like her?

Sometimes I just feel that we are remarkably useless. Even though I know that every voice who rises up, every person who peacefully protests, every individual who speaks up online or in person, makes a difference, I still feel as if we (or at least, I) have no real conviction. All I know is that I really do understand how atrocities in the past were allowed to happen. I understand how people could have supported chattel slavery, or the holocaust, or infanticide. I understand how slave owners could have brought themselves to brutally abuse "their" slaves, I understand how "Dr." Mengele could have experimented on children, and I understand how the Greeks and Romans could have left their newborn babies to die in the wilderness. I understand because I see it happening today with abortion, forced abortion and gendercide, human trafficking, poverty, and the millions of other tragedies that happen every single day. People justify them, or ignore them, or dehumanize the victims, or convince themselves that it can never happen to them, and then get on with their lives. I am guilty of this too, and I don't see how I could function normally if I wasn't. How can one live day-to-day constantly thinking about everything that is wrong with the world?

Just some food for thought.

From Secular Pro-Life: Is it really so hypothetical?

[in response to a hypothetical situation where an organization chucks two-year-old's into a furnace, and pro-lifers do nothing but say how awful it is]

"People have to live with these kinds of contradictions every day, actually. It's not like people three hundred years ago had no idea how bad the slave trade was. It's not like Americans in the nineteenth century didn't know how awful the Trail of Tears was. It's not like Germans under the Nazi regime really thought it was okay to lock up millions of Jews in concentration camps. These things really happened, not because people were so different from you or me. They happened because normal people like you and me aren't so wonderful as we think we are. It's remarkably easy to justify evil."


From Bad Catholic: Why I Don't Care

"If the March for Life was a march of human beings who saw other human beings as normalizing and legalizing the murder of infants, there would be cars burning in the street. As it turns out, there is no protest in the present age. There is only representation. There is no foolish human action. There is only the support of abstractions. Infants are being killed - we follow the lines the police allow us to follow."