You Really Want to be “Pro Choice”?
June 9th, 2008 at 05:12am Mark Noonan
‘Cause its a bit messy, on that side of the aisle:
A mother who decided to abort her son because he may have inherited a life-threatening kidney condition is overjoyed that he survived the procedure.
Jodie Percival of Nottinghamshire, England, said she and her fiancee made the decision to abort baby Finley when she was eight weeks pregnant.
Percival’s first son Thane died of multicystic dysplastic kidneys — which causes cysts to grow on the kidneys of an unborn baby — and her second child Lewis was born with serious kidney damage and currently has just one kidney, the Daily Mail reported.
“I was on the (birth control pill) when I became pregnant,” Percival, 25, said. “Deciding to terminate at eight weeks was just utterly horrible but I couldn’t cope with the anguish of losing another baby.”
A short time after the abortion, Percival felt a fluttering in her stomach. She went to the doctor for a scan and discovered she was 19 weeks pregnant.
The news story concludes by stating the baby is expected now to live a normal life - in other words, the baby they tried to kill today over worry about tomorrow, is goinng to be fine. How many women abort a baby for this reason? And how many of them would have turned out fine.
You see, life isn’t a cut and dried thing - and, also, none of us are even promised tomorrow, so there isn’t too much advantage in worrying about it. We should deal with the things of today, today; deal with tomorrow’s problems, tomorrow. From what we can gather the preganancy, itself, was low risk…going along just fine. And each day that the pregnancy was fine, the only thing which should have concerned the parents on that day was to keep it going fine. They could not more control the next day than they could control the stars in the heavens. The strong, modern desire to control tomorrow, however, nearly resulted in a murdered child, who has turned out fine.
Choose life - its for the best, always.
Entry Filed under: Life Issues
10 Comments
1. Danish Artist | June 9th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Thankfully, socialized or government nationalized medicine bungled the “procedure”.
Another example of “don’t want to be inconvenienced” pregnancy.
Abort the baby because there was a “chance” of kidney condition. Granted that may be an inherited condition, but let’s take a lesson from 1930s Germany and abort the genetically weak.
I know this will piss off liberals, but it needs to be said. Liberals push and pass laws for smoking and drinking while pregnant with severe penalties. However, in almost the same breath, they call it choice. If only doctors could test for liberalism and homosexuality, then maybe they would be on to something. Would the liberals then call it choice?
2. OperationChaos | June 9th, 2008 at 7:52 am
DA, you realize that the libs are only for choice when it suits their agenda, right? Hell, it’s even worse over here in the U.K.
I have a choice; my choice is to ignore liberal clap-trap because it causes sever mental illness. Libs should be seen and not heard; however, if you do hear them, ignore them. Most of them don’t understand the illness they’re suffering from…
3. Uptown | June 9th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Again, you want to reduce the number of abortions vote Democratic. Democrats are much more likely to fund research that will lead to a cure for multicystic dysplastic kidneys; therefore reducing by one the reasons a woman would consider the decision to abort.
4. neocon | June 9th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Hey,
Did Christopher Reeves ever walk again?
Oh, that’s right Kerry lost the election. Just think of all those people that would be walking today.
5. Sunny | June 9th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Do you believe that Republican women NEVER have abortions? Or that Conservative Christians NEVER have abortions? Would be interesting to know exactly who gets abortions.
6. Pain | June 9th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
1. Danish Artist | June 9th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Could you cite an example of laws “pushed and passed” by anyone in support of pregnant women smoking and drinking?
7. Danish Artist | June 9th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Pain,
you are an imbecile. Stop deflecting with your unendless supply of stupidity.
That is not what I said and you know it. You conveniently forgot “with severe penalties” clause.
But isn’t it a woman’s choice what is to be done with her body?
Who are we to tell her she can’t drink or smoke while pregnant?
Isn’t that putting the government in control of her womb?
What is the difference if the end result is the same?
How can that woman be held responsible smoking and drinking while pregnant, it is only a cluster of cells?
Liberals always claim they are “for the children” what they don’t tell them is that “if they are lucky enough to make it out alive!”.
8. Harry | June 9th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Noonan you should do the righteous thing and adopt.
Adopt a black baby. Adopt a brown baby.
Adopt a yellow baby. Adopt a downs syndrome baby. Adopt a crack addict baby.
Spare us the B.S. and show us the GAWDLY way. Display the passion of Jay-sus.
Phony.
Yeesh.
9. DM | June 10th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Harry -Your derogatory use of the name of God and Jesus is disgusting. Do you have anything to debate or are you too juvenile for that?
Mark / Matt – It would be appreciated if you’d make using God’s name in such a way a reason for banning. It has no place here and adds absolutely nothing to the debate or your blog.
10. CeCe | June 10th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Harry,
How many times have you kept your pants zipped in order to prevent an unwanted pregnancy? Seems a fair question, don’t you think?