Amen.

She doesn't care enough to give her child life. So, in order to pretend she cares, she moans over the method of disposal.

Posted by DADvocate at October 28, 2006 07:32 AM

Well of course. That would be someone else's fault, and therefore worth thinking about. She might even be able to sue for damages.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at October 28, 2006 08:44 AM

I agree with GM, DADvocate and AVI that this mum is not motivated by motherly love. However, I don't think the hospital made a reasonable cost-cutting choice. Pot, meet kettle. Here's another UK story about questionable medical ethics, in which a doctor apparently refused to come clean with the police and as a result a young mother was tried for poisoning her son with salt. She was, thankfully, acquitted in the child's death after the doctor admitted several mistakes:

"Joshua was born 12 weeks prematurely by Caesarean section and weighed only 2lb 10oz. He spent much of his life in hospital suffering from a number of medical problems, including very small kidneys. He had to be fed through a tube and was given daily doses of sodium chloride to counterbalance his failing kidneys, which expelled too much sodium. After his death, tests revealed that his body contained 20 times the amount of sodium prescribed to help his kidney problems.

During the trial it was revealed that doctors, led by Dr Rodney Gilbert, gave Joshua drugs to treat him for dehydration, which contained salt. Dr Gilbert admitted failing to do glucose and urine tests and using an equation for adults to calculate what drugs use to reduce the boy’s sodium levels. He said that he now understood the equation was not designed for children."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2424865,00.html

I'm not trying to pick on the medical community or the UK but it's interesting to read these articles in the same week.

Posted by DRJ at October 28, 2006 12:14 PM

Reminds me of that Black Power slogan, "Burn, baby, burn!"

(If you want to delete this as offensive, I'll understand.)

Posted by Jeremayakovka at October 28, 2006 03:21 PM

JMK, it is a little offensive, but not anywhere near as offensive as the mothers actions and then reaction to the desposing of the body.

Posted by GM at October 28, 2006 03:27 PM

You guys are being too harsh here...

James Taranto ran this story earlier this week (titled Fetus to the Fire). When I read the story to my wife, she immediately responded, "Every women getting an abortion knows its her baby that she's killing."

It's just that in order to justify abortions in the politcal/judicial arena, advocates have to jump intellectual hoops, an integral part of which is to label these babies something else (e.g. embryos, fetuses) in order to divert attention.

A women undergoing an abortion has to intellectually convince herself that she's not killing her baby, but rather something that is not-fully human. While she may convince herself at the time, this self-deception often breaks down later, which highlights the importance of post-abortion grief counseling.

(This is also why ultrasound is such a powerful instrument in the hands of pro-life clinics: when women actually see their baby inside themselves, there's no way they can continue to view their baby as just a clump of cells.)

What I read happening in this story is that the emotional impact of the news that her baby had been burned with the trash crashed through the intellectual artifice and, perhaps without even thinking, the speaker blurted out the truth she knew in her heart, but had suppressed.

Of course, we all on the outside can see the complete disconnect between her ability to undergo an abortion and her subsequent response. After all, if it's just a piece of tissue, why should she be so upset at how the hospital handled this tissue.

But then again, she's so upset because she knows it's human, it was her child.

Thus our response should not be anger towards her, but rather compassion -- that is, we should pray that this woman find someone to help her deal with the truth that she had chosen to kill her baby, so that she can find healing -- before she raises up a new wall and disassociates again from her actions.

Our anger should primarily be directed at the purveyors of the lie -- the doctors and the abortion advocates.

Lord have mercy...

Posted by civil truth at October 28, 2006 06:24 PM

CT, less harsh than disgusted. You are of course correct that in many cases (most) there is an intellectual disconnect between gettin rid of some cells vs getting rid of a baby. My scorn is both with the abortion industry, as well as the self deluded individuals who choose abortion. I have sympathy for the woman's emotion, but for dang sure not her actions.

Posted by GM at October 28, 2006 06:48 PM

This woman treats her unborn baby as if it were something at the bottom of a garbage can, and is upset that it's disposed of like something from the bottom of a garbage can? What gall! What an idiot!! What the hell does she care? She murdered it. If only her parents had done the same for her, this world would be a little better place to live in.

Posted by Vulgorilla at October 28, 2006 08:08 PM

Civil Truth,

I, too, read this article earlier in the week but I still benefit from discussing with people like GM whose opinions I value. To the extent you perceived my attitude toward this mother as angry, you are mistaken. In fact, I feel very sorry for her if she views abortion as the emotional tightrope where "it's a baby" for some purposes and "it's not a baby" for others.

I am borderline libertarian on social issues so I don't care if this mother gets an abortion, but I fully expect her to understand that it is her choice whether to have an abortion and that she has to live with the consequences of that choice. Frankly, to me, it's ludicrous to expect people to feel compassion for a mother who intentionally disposes of her fetus/baby and then complains because the garbageman doesn't show the proper respect for her trash.

Posted by DRJ at October 28, 2006 08:21 PM

The sad part is that the establishment, meaning abortion advocates, much of society, the media and courts, will side with her and turn the evil-e y e toward the hospital which only reinforces her complaint. Which is to "dispose" of her "inconvenience" in a manner she sees fit, but everyones else is to bear the responsibility of showing compassion and decorum once it is no longer her problem.

She bears responsibility in her heart? One can only hope! Yet, this accomplishes nothing when others help her reinforce the idea that it's okay to do what she did, but not for anyone else to finish the job with the same "dissconnect". Yes, I hope she gets help, but the kind of help that makes her realize her decision is what brought this on and that she learns not to repeat it.

Maybe this is a "two wrongs don't make a right" issue, but it is also a wake up call for anyone willing to look at the absurdity of it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
GM: Just so you know, my comment was rejected for the phrase "e y e t o" (had to put spaces in there to get it to pass)

Posted by Oyster at October 29, 2006 03:41 AM

Perhaps I have tried too hard to find one ray of hope that some good could come out of this evil. Since a truly hardened (but logically consistent) heart would say "who cares what you do with the tissue," I had some hope that her upset (and recognition that it was her baby) might represent a window for redemption.

However, I think Oyster you have summed up the situation perfectly. Rather than responding with repentence, the "establishment" (as has this woman) will respond by "shooting the messenger"; they will desperately try to salve their consciences (but actually sear their consciences) by turning their fury upon the hospital that dared to make them feel uncomfortable, as though a "dignified" disposition of the evidence lessens their culpability for their actions.

I wish that you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm...I will vomit you out of my mouth..

Time to head for the bathroom...

Posted by civil truth at October 30, 2006 12:47 PM