Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Social Justice - Daddy's Letter to the Editor

"The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats it's most vulnerable members" - Mahatma Gandhi 

In 2012, a young girl in Seattle was saved from an injustice that claims the lives of thousands of women every year. Her mother was homeless, drug-addicted, African-American, and could barely care for herself let alone her daughter. 
The girl had no idea who her father was. In fact, she didn't have the mental capacity to comprehend much about her life. 
Underdeveloped vocal chords made it impossible to speak in her own defense; and because she was unable to walk, it was impossible to escape those who wanted to harm her. She is arguably society's "most vulnerable member." 
But at least she was in Seattle, where the many defenders of social justice would come to the aid of a vulnerable woman like her, right?  Wrong. Unfortunately, she had the one deficiency that placed her outside the protection of social justice activists: She was unborn. 
It didn't matter that her natural eye-hair-skin colors, height, sex and adorable laugh were decided the moment she was conceived. Nor that all her vital organs, including her brain, had been functioning perfectly for many months. It didn't matter that scientific fact had declared her both human and alive at conception. 
Because she had not made the trip down the birth canal, nearly all of society had condemned her as unwanted, unloved and sentenced to death. All but one, that is.  Her mother: homeless, drug-addicted, African-America hero of my daughter's story. 
Her self-sacrifice on behalf of one of society's most-vulnerable women speaks volumes. 
Her message to all of us is summed up in a single word, the word she spoke when doctors asked her the name of her baby: "Marvelous." My adopted daughter is truly marvelous.
Hardly a day goes by where she has not brought joy, smiles and laughter to complete strangers; and been fought over by a crowd of siblings!  She is one-of-a-kind, wanted and irreplaceable, just like the 60 million who have died by the tragedy called "choice." 
Like the tens of thousands of other families, we waited years for the chance to give Marvelous a home, and would gladly have done so for other abortion survivors. 
Standing outside Planned Parenthood the past 40 days, we saw and heard many things. but no one was willing to defend what we were standing against: abortion. If you consider yourself pro-choice but not pro-abortion, please recognize that pro-choice equals pro-abortion.  The choice you are defending is the choice to kill an innocent baby like Marvelous. 
This is the most deadly social injustice in America; and the multi-billion-dollar abortion industry will do anything to hide this fact with deceptive slogans and personal attacks.
If you've been on the wrong side of this issue, if you've been victimized by "pro-choice" deception, we want to help. We'll help you find truth, hope and healing, no matter what
Please contact us through: 40 Days for Life - Centralia
Ted Bowes 
Mossyrock, WA 






The day Marvelous legally became Brielle Jubilee Bowes!

Waiting for our turn at the courthouse on adoption day! :-) 

Brielle LOVES Valerie's Lab puppies! 




















(Photo credits: Bonnie's Custom Photography, Robyn and Valerie Bowes, Lydia Tevis, Evan Smythe) 

Below is a discussion that took place online after the letter was printed in the paper and posted online. 

SMH 
My husband and I are happy that you and your adopted daughter found each other. One of the primary points of your letter is that the mother made the right choice to give birth and put the child up for adoption. That is what many pro-choice people like my husband and myself want for every woman -- the right to make the best choice for her, given her specific situation. We believe a variety of birth control measures should be widely available and affordable for women and men. Additionally, young people should be educated about birth control, family planning, etc. Statistics show that the abortion rate in the US has been declining for decades, and we believe it would decline even more if our above suggestions were fully implemented. There may still be times, however, when an abortion is the preferred choice of the woman (for a variety of reasons) and we believe she should have that choice. It is her body, after all.

Mom in Mossyrock 
Dear SMH - The title the editor used for the letter might give the impression that a mother’s choice is most important. But the letter makes the case that some choices are just wrong. I do think the birth mother made the right choice; but not if right means “the best choice for her, given her specific situation”. Wouldn’t you agree that on that basis “right” would have been to abort (kill) the baby? Her choice was right because killing an innocent and defenseless human being, just because their life is inconvenient, is always wrong. All of us experience inconvenience to accommodate of the lives of others at times. Who would argue that our convenience is more important than someone else’s life? You close your comment by saying, “It is her body, after all”. In the first editorial on this subject, the question was asked, “When did you get your body?” How would you answer that? Based on the science of embryology, the baby (and you!) received the gift of her body when she was conceived. So when does a baby’s right to live outweigh a mother’s right to “make the best choice for her”? Let’s keep talking . . . 

SMH 
Thanks for your response. I disagree with your statement that the right choice for the mother was to have an abortion. The right choice for her was to give birth and have the baby adopted. There is always going to be a debate about whose rights are paramount -- the fetus's or the mother's. How would you feel about a case where the mother will die if she does not terminate her pregnancy? You address that question in your last sentence. Our laws set limits on when an abortion may be performed (when the mother's rights outweigh the fetus's and vice versa). And not every abortion is performed just because the pregnancy will be inconvenient. What about if a fetus, at around 14 weeks, is found to have anencephaly? This is a condition where the skull, scalp, and brain have not properly formed in the womb. Some or most of the brain is missing and the condition is always fatal, with babies living only hours or days after birth (assuming they are not stillborn first). Should a woman be forced to carry this baby to term? As I said, I would wish abortion to be rare but available and safe. And I believe a woman should have control over her own body. Thanks for the good discussion!

Mom in Mossyrock 
Thank you so much for continuing the discussion SMH and for sharing your thoughts and questions. As far as the right choice . . . in the case of my daughter what society would tell her mother to be the right choice would have been to abort because of her situation and the list of difficulties stacked-up against her. Is it ever right to give another human being the higher right to take the life of an innocent child? As far as the question of the mother's rights being paramount to the child's in the case of a difficult pregnancy - those cases are extremely rare and in most cases the medical professionals encourage the mother to abort, not because she is in any danger, but in order to safeguard themselves from law suits. There is a very good video that explains this and many other hard cases on the blog here: http://lclifeline.blogspot.com/p/videos.html It's the first video on the page. I personally have carried two pregnancies to term that medical professionals encouraged me to abort; a set of quadruplets and my last child. Over 900,000 abortions take place in the US every year and according to the Guttmacher Institute 74% of women had an abortion because of inconvenience. https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/journals/3711005.pdf . . . and why would they think twice in doing so? If it's legal, it must not be wrong, right? There's the link and scroll to page 4 for the graph of reasons women give for abortion. I agree Anencephaly is an extremely difficult case and I'm sure painfully emotional for the parents to wrestle with. I personally have not had an Anencephaly baby so I can only imagine how hard it would be. But I do have 2 close friends who have carried Anancephaly babies and neither of them regret carrying them until it was their time to pass away. Despite the emotional difficulty, they still loved their baby as long as they could and because they did not abort they are not experiencing and having to deal with the added guilt of taking their baby's life before it was time. I agree with you that women should have control over their own body. But, the teeny body of their baby developing within the womb is not a part of the mother's body . . . it is a distinct, living human being with a completely different genetic code, in many cases different blood type, and 50% of the time with a different gender. Again, when did you get your body? When did every woman get her body . . . and when would you say it becomes wrong for someone else to take a very young woman's life? Baby girls are completely dependent on another adult(s) for a long time after they are born. Thank you for this continued discussion!

SMH 
Thanks for your comments. I disagree with your statement that a fetus is not a part of a woman's body. The fetus is attached to the woman's body and is completely dependent upon her. That certainly sounds as if it is a part of her body. Your friends who carried anencephalic babies made the best choice for them, and that is great. Not all women would want to make the same choice, however, and I want them to have that option. It appears we have reached the end of our conversation as we seem to be going in circles now. For me, it all comes down to a woman having control over her body and making decisions that are best for her. And as I have said, I want abortion to be rare but available and safe. I also want birth control readily available and affordable and I want young people properly educated. I hope you support these efforts. Thanks for the discussion! 

SMH 
After I posted my comment last night, I thought of another point I would like to make. Abortions are not a modern procedure. They have been around since ancient times. After just a quick bit of research, I found that women have been obtaining abortions (or performing them upon themselves) as far back as 400 BC. And as we know from modern times, many women were seriously injured or died as a result of unsafe abortions. Do we as a society really want to return to those dark days? Therefore, I return to my main point that we should make birth control widely available and affordable and educate young people so that abortion will be rare, but available and safe. Thanks!
Mom in Mossyrock 
Hello again SMH! Sorry for the delayed response and hope you see this! I'll keep this short as I do agree that we're covering some of the same ground . . . but I guess I'd still like to know your answer to my question "When did you get your body?" You've never responded to that, but keep talking about how important it is to respect a woman's right over her own body. The big question in abortion is not whether we should respect such a right, but when it should be granted. When does a baby "woman" receive the right to prevent someone else from ending her life prematurely? Should it be withheld until she is able to ask for it, or comprehend what it is? If so, you must agree with the man I spoke with in the conference room where "Pro-Choice" signs were being made in early April. He finally admitted that if it's morally OK to kill a baby before birth, it must be morally OK to kill a fully dependent infant after birth. At least he was thinking with logical consistency and willing to be honest . . . but are you willing to accept this logical conclusion of your "pro-Choice" position. Or will you agree with modern scientific fact that you received a unique human body at conception, and though you lacked the capacity to ask for or defend your right to keep others from killing you, you still deserved the right to live. Again, if you were not granted the right to live by your mother at that stage, what other rights would ever have mattered. The only reason any of us are able to discuss this matter today is that our right to life was protected while we were growing inside our mother's womb. How can you not see the wrong in denying that same protection to those growing inside their mother's now. Are they not the "most vulnerable" that Ghandi spoke about? And shouldn't we protect their right to life as the fundamental right of any human being? If you'll answer those questions for me, I'll gladly answer the "unsafe abortions" and "affordable birth control" questions . . . but none of that matters if you won't agree that the right to life is fundamental and should always be protected.

No comments:

Post a Comment