Baby Survives Abortion, Attains Personhood From Mother’s Delight
Jodie Percival & Finley Crampton
Mother’s anger turns to delight after her baby survives an abortion (Daily Mail)
Finley Crampton really shouldn’t be here. Although his parents would have loved another child, they knew their baby could inherit a life-threatening kidney condition – and they couldn’t take the risk.
After all, their first son had died of the condition and the second was born with serious kidney damage.
So when Finley’s mother, Jodie Percival, became pregnant while on the Pill, she and her fiance Billy Crampton, 35, made the agonising decision to abort this child.
However, Finley had other ideas. And some time after the operation, Miss Percival felt a fluttering in her stomach.
[...]
‘At first I was angry that this was happening to us, that the procedure had failed.
‘I wrote to the hospital, I couldn’t believe that they had let me down like this. They wrote back and apologised and said it was very rare.’
[...]
‘I still struggle to believe just what he has fought through. Now he’s here I wouldn’t change it for the world.’
I think we can become so numb to the reality of abortion that we struggle to feel its cold brutality. If you have the time, read through the above article three or four times. The language here is terrifyingly matter-of-fact.
“Finley Crampton really shouldn’t be here.” The author writes this as if Baby Finley survived a natural disaster or car wreck. Why shouldn’t Baby Finley be here? “They couldn’t take the risk [of Baby Finley suffering a kidney disorder].” Baby Finley shouldn’t be here, because his parents decided he shouldn’t be here. Baby Finley’s parents, the very humans entrusted to care most for him, elected to “terminate” or “abort” (i.e. kill) him.
To ease the consciences of any readers who might recoil at this “decision”, the article’s author makes sure to let us know it was an “agonizing decision“. While I don’t doubt it was, how does this improve the decision? I’m sure the parents of 16-month-old Ava Worthington agonized over their decision to (fatally) withhold medical treatment from their daughter in favor of prayer and faith. I doubt the author of this article would write so compassionately about those parents and their “agonizing decision”.
And notice the language in the very title of the article: “Mother’s anger turns to delight…” What changed in Baby Finley after the attempted abortion, making his life valuable and worthy of protection, that was absent before the attempted abortion? Nothing but the whims and emotions of the parents.
It seems the value of a pre-born human hinges not on anything intrinsic in itself (e.g. being a bearer of the divine image – or simply being human), but solely on the desire and will of the parents.
Some would call that tyranny.
I’m not sure why you don’t understand the difference between a 16 month old and a fetus? I’m also guessing that you, Jim don’t have a womb. Women don’t need the government to make laws endangering our lives and rights just to protect us from a “wrong” decision morally.
Provide proper sex education and access to birth control and see the enlightenment and change in the world we’re all looking for = less abortion. Research other countries not trapped in the grip of theocracy and look at their abortion rates, not to mention lower teen pregnancy rates and STDs- that is the way to reduce abortions- prohibition has been tried, it was deadly and discriminatory. We don’t need to repeat it!
Citizenkim,
Do you have a penis? If not, then why do you get to have a voice in rape law? Keep your laws off my junk!
Why is a 16-month old different from a fetus? You can’t merely state that they are different and rest your case. Many make self-awareness the criteria for personhood. Peter Singer, from a animal rights, utilitarian, perspective, argues that born human infants are significantly less intelligent and self-aware than pigs, dogs, etc. Therefore, a mother should reserve the right to terminate a newborn weeks after birth if the infant becomes “unwanted”.
And how can you rationally make an argument against laws prohibiting “wrong” moral decisions? Isn’t rape “wrong”? Murder? Theft? Child abuse? Please, be consistent.
Er, Kim…
“Provide proper sex education and access to birth control and see the enlightenment and change in the world we’re all looking for = less abortion.”
Sex education and access to birth contol don’t prevent abortion. In case you hadn’t noticed, we have greater access to that than any almost country in the world, yet we still needlessly slaughter millions of babies. No, it is a matter of choice. Not the baby’s mind you, but as Jim said the emotional whims of the parents.
Until we change our thinking that human life, any of it, is subject to personal whims we will see this needless slaughter continue to grow.
Kim wrote:
“Provide proper sex education and access to birth control and see the enlightenment and change in the world we’re all looking for = less abortion. Research other countries not trapped in the grip of theocracy and look at their abortion rates, not to mention lower teen pregnancy rates and STDs- that is the way to reduce abortions- prohibition has been tried, it was deadly and discriminatory. We don’t need to repeat it!”
I may be living in a box or something, but Russia and China both are the furthest from a “theocracy” yet Russia has abortion rates that far exceed ours. Legalized murder is not a good choice for any nation. And if you think proper education of fallen people will bring about less abortions, your wrong. If that were true, America’s campagin to educate Americans about the dangers of drug addiction as a means of a deturrant, would have worked. Yet addiction and the drug trade that fules it is increasing.
Jim, I love your passion on this issue. blessings to you my brother.
wow penis jim- that’s a pretty disgusting and misogynistic analogy. I don’t have a penis so I shouldn’t be able to decide if I want someone to rape me? How lucky the women in your life must feel. And pls spare me your ridiculous pseudo-intellectual arguments with Singer- if you can’t see the difference between an embryo/fetus and a newborn baby, that’s just ignorant. And as for outlawing wrong moral decisions- your examples are ludicrous and I have to say you seem to really be upset about the illegality of rape- a bit scary. Its about a human being able to make decisions about their own bodies. Pls, be consistent.
haybark- I think you might be living in a box or something- you should come out of there… you are is contracted as you’re and deterrent is spelled w/out a or u. Your drug analogy makes no sense whatsoever and your passionate brother Jim strongly disagrees w/you about murder not being a good choice for a nation- check his home page.
err…mbaker- Sex education and access to birth control reduces abortion- that’s indisputable. In case you haven’t noticed our access to that has been a vicious battle, its still limited and thanks to idiot Bush it’s become even more so.
Making it illegal will just push it under the carpet. Women who can afford to will find safe ways to do it and women who can’t will suffer unimaginably. And save me all your unimaginably suffering unborn human comments. Reducing abortion is the goal, to try to go about that by making it illegal is just ignorant. Study some history or do some research -I’m bored. I’m sure your hypocrisies would leak out all over the place if we started talking about birth control, plan b, stem cell research, fertility treatments, incest or rape cases- not to mention the death penalty. We disagree. Making it illegal is not the solution. I have no more energy for you people.
“I have no more energy for you people.”
Boy, are we ludicrous, ignorant hypocrites thankful for THAT.
Kim, you’ve missed Jim’s point entirely. It’s not that he wants to rape you. It’s that, according to your logic, you shouldn’t have a voice in rape laws because you don’t have a penis. I agree that his argument is sexist, but rather than being misogynist, it’s clearly misandrist, since it assumes that only men rape.
I find it funny, however, that you consider Jim ignorant because he doesn’t see a difference between a child before and after its birth. It must be convenient to be so right that you don’t even have to give a reason WHY you’re right. Would you care to define the difference between them? Also, I’m curious, would you agree that any children that are born before the full nine months gestation are people? Assuming they survive, of course.
I also think it’s unfair for you to call out Haybark for grammatical deficiencies when you don’t even bother to fully type out “please.” Please, be consistent.
I have to agree with Matthew, Kim. You seem content to state, “I’m right – you’re all ignorant hypocrites!” without actually positing any kind of coherent arguments.
God Bless & Good Luck
P.S. I will spare you the humiliation of my red pen in correcting YOUR grammar! Sheesh! It’s always a bad sign when your arguments are void of… well… arguments, and are instead full of ad hominems and condescending grammar lessons.
I had to post this article on my facebook profile. I found it quite disturbing despite the seemingly “happy ending”. I think you have nailed it: It is the cold, unemotional tone that bothered me most.
Thank you for taking a public stand on this controversial issue.
Jim,
Why can’t you see that simply stating your case with anger, emotion and slander is enough to win? In fact it’s a well known law of liberalism:
“Stating your case proves it”.
So I agree with Kim. You’re a stupid head and a hyper fundamentalist and ignorant and a guy who wants to rape women. See, I’m right! I made absolute statements with feelings of anger and condescending hostility…wait, I forgot to insult your intelligence too. No I didn’t, you’re a stupid head, that’s right….
You know, I thought people like her didn’t really exist. I mean, it’s bizarre to see someone who no doubt believes herself to be “open minded” and “enlightened” so horribly lacking in any ability to convey anything with solid reason and logic, or how ’bout evidence?
Love all you fellow closed minded twits who always win arguments with reason, logic and evidence.
mark jr.