OPED: Real Baby Killers

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2009
OPED: Real Baby Killers
13
Mon, 04-05-2010 - 9:35am

Real Baby Killers


By Vickie Stangl


One of the most brutal child abuse cases made headlines this week in Kansas. Yes, there are real "baby killers" in society. Are we finally prepared to have a grown-up discussion on women and reproductive decisions?


Let's begin by first examining the sanctity of life philosophy of men like Scott Roeder. The philosophy is grounded in the theory that any pregnant woman, and I mean any woman, say a 12 year old girl with Down's syndrome, has the moral duty to carry her fetus to term regardless of any other issues or common sense facts. Or, let's use a different example. A woman in her early twenties who has no job, is hooked on drugs, lives with an abusive boyfriend and she also has anger management issues, is pregnant. Which is the more ethical choice? Deny both these females a safe, humane option to ending their pregnancies if they wish to do so, or uphold the sanctity of life and demand these women give birth?
If you can't decide perhaps we need to make the issue more real. The abuse of a child in Newton, Kansas last week was revealed to be so brutal that the authorities said they had never seen anything so horrible. Do we still stand and support the sanctity of life mantra which means this sweet, innocent, defenseless little lamb's torture was far more humane than if its mother had aborted him? I bet we won't see self-righteous football player Tim Tebow doing a commercial on this real life scenario any too soon.


More:
http://www.kansasfreepress.com/2010/04/real-baby-killers.html

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-20-2007
Wed, 04-07-2010 - 7:50pm

I hope whoever the parent was, they are locked up forever, and never again see the outside world.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2007
Sun, 04-11-2010 - 4:37pm

I dont think that comparing child abuse to abortion is apt.


Who is to say that these horrid women who abuse thier kids will be the ones to abort? The idea of saving kids from abuse by aborting them is not something that I feel is advocatable. So many factors go into child abuse that saying we may have saved kids from abuse by aborting them is outside my comfort zone.


              *Praying for my best friend, my Dad*


 &n

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2009
Mon, 04-19-2010 - 3:05pm

I believe that the article is stating that people think that a woman ending a pregnancy is somehow less acceptable to Pro-lifers than abusing a child to death.


I think that she's stating that our energy should go to protecting those children at risk that are here, and can be taken out of abusive situations, rather than focusing that attention on trying to force women to bear children against their will.


And for the record, I believe that not having a baby is far wiser and humane choice than having one when you are not ready and willing and able

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 04-21-2010 - 2:04am
No, I think we should invest in research into health technologies that will allow us to control fertility from a centralized location and then not give anyone the greenlight to reproduce until they graduate from an accredited don't-be-a-fudged-up human being school. Wow is our government going to have to come a long way before I can sleep at night!!!
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-07-2005
Mon, 05-10-2010 - 9:13am

wow; you remind me of my mother. not to say that you're an unpleasent human being who would abuse your child; you just remind me of her "i'm right, you're wrong bow down to me" attitude. (please don't take that the wrong way; i really mean it innocently!!)


motherhood is not always easy; anyone with half a brain cell knows that. but to insinuate that every child who is abused came from a family whho didn't want to be pregnant or opted for abortion is false.


there are plenty of people out there who get pregnant, opt NOT to abort, and end up abusing said child. my parents included. i think it's wrong to lump all those abusive parents into the "they would have aborted" category, or even the "their life was so messed up that they knew they'd abuse their baby" category.


child abuse in any form is inexcusable, so don't get me wrong. but not every abusive family lives in an abandoned house and leaves the baby in the corner of a room while they do drugs and whatnot. sometimes the suburban 50's-style family whith the nice house and the overall pleasent demeanor and such well-behaved kids isn't so nice behind closed doors.


i also think it's wrong to judge people "fit" or "unfit" just because their life isn't completely ironed out. to have a fertility-regulator that would make it impossible to have kids until your life is completely straightened out is good in theory, but poor in practice, whereas some families NEED to become parents in order to get their lives straightened out. (i was one.)

enter siggy here

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-10-2009
Sat, 05-22-2010 - 11:59am

<<

I also think that the decision not to have a baby, ro to delay having a baby while in an abusive relationship is also more humane than having one knowing that there will be abuse during the pregnancy.

Again, it comes down to letting the woman make that decision, not lawmakers, you or me.>>>

ITA with all of this.

Meez 3D avatar avatars games
Meez 3D avatar avatars games
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-21-2007
Tue, 05-25-2010 - 11:19am

Personally I think of it this way. If a person went down to the humane society and wanted to adopt an animal,they do background checks,make you fill out an entire survey about animal care and welfare and you have to get a licence to own a dog.When I adopted my cat when I was 18...Iam 22 now...they made me provide photo ID, to prove I was 18 and all sorts of things.People who abuse animals sometimes if the abuse is bad enough are never allowed to own an animal again.Howcome there are people out there that have a child and abuse/neglect the child,and they are allowed to keep having kids?


We are so rigerous with who we let own animals,yet anyone can have a child? Iam sure if someone who had an abusive past,was clearly on drugs and just messed up went into an animal shelter to adopt an animal it would be very difficult for them.They don't just let anyone adopt an animal.Yet someone who is clearly messed up can have a child? Thats crazy in my opinion.I think if you need a licence to own a dog and so forth,same with having a child.


If a 15 yr old drug addict who isn't in school or is and is failing becomes pregnant and doesn't have anyone to help her out,I do believe she would be doing the child justice aborting it.I was adopted thank god,or else I would have been in foster care,but I would much rather not exist at all then live a horrible life,bouncing around from home to home wondering why my own parents didn't want me. What child wants to grow up in poverty or in an abusive household? Why put a child through that? And even if a child isn't kept by the parents and put in a foster home?What child wants to be identified by a number and considered property of the state/province? That is no life for a child.I personally think it is somewhat selfish to keep a child if you are not in a position to properly care for it and provide for it. Because of a persons beliefs...ie.Anti-abortion,they are willing to let their child grow up in poverty,or abuse or as part of the system? Its selfish.I do think something should be put in place to control who has kids,that way if only the good people out there that don't abuse their kids had children,there wouldn't be such a thing as child abuse.More children would grow up successful,they'd be happier and healthier.I think having a child should be a privelage earned to someone

Hollie

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-02-2006
Tue, 05-25-2010 - 1:16pm

<health examination is done,to find out if the person is on drugs,has violent tendancies or thoughts, and so on. ... .And if they failed any of those tests....they should not be allowed to have their child.>>


So you're basically advocating forced abortion.

2010 Siggy
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-21-2007
Tue, 05-25-2010 - 1:55pm
Good Lord no! That is not what I mean! My goodness,I figured it was a given,somewhat obvious....she simply shouldn't be allowed to have her child.Her herself! She could have the baby if she chooses but shouldn't be allowed to keep it or raise it! If she chooses an abortion fine,if not also fine.Just don't allow her to have her child.

Hollie

Hollie

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-02-2006
Tue, 05-25-2010 - 2:12pm

Thank you for clarifying.

2010 Siggy

Pages