The Story of a Ballerina from Africa

In April, I wrote about 17 year old Ballet dancer, Michaela DePrince, and her parents who adopted her out of Sierra Leone, Africa. When I saw her perform on Dancing With the Stars as a featured performer, she moved me to tears and strengthened my resolve (as if it needed it) that there is no such thing as “an unwanted child” when considering Abortion issues.

Someone responded to me by saying while her story is a triumphant example of how all humans should be treated, she was a lucky one out of the thousands of others just like her in the culture she was born into… thus, the other children who were not so lucky probably would have been better off aborted.

Better off killed. Better off extinguished. Not even given the chance.

Why? How is this logic workable in someone’s mind? That it’s okay to go ahead and kill an indispensable human being because that person might be subject to pain or suffering in his/her life? Who are we to feel that we can stand on the outside and judge the value or —what do they call it now? My prego brain is losing me… the QUALITY OF LIFE! there it is— how can we judge the quality of someone else’s life to be unfit so far as to deem that person not even worthy of the air he or she breathes …or has yet to even experience breathing?

For the general group of individuals who are pro-choice, they tend to be your “bleeding heart liberals” —though I can attest that this is only a stereotype, as I myself am an artist, a dreamer, an increasingly crunchy-granola-“earthy child” and my heart is pretty bloody— But to the bleeding hearts who feel it necessary to, in the case of someone they somehow deem as unworthy of his or her own life that anyone besides the Almighty Creator has the authority to remove that life from them, without even asking permission… that makes no sense to me. It is backward for a group of people who claim tolerance and love above all to be the guidance of their life choices and their “pro-choice-ness” to turn around, point a finger, and say, “YOU. You there, you’re better off dead!”

Those children like Michaela are living saints in today’s filthy world of people bantering over whether or not to eat at Chick-Fil-A because the CEO doesn’t support a certain sexual lifestyle. I say LET THEM LIVE. They are our silent angels among our ridiculously petty selfishness. The underprivileged , I am willing to bet, understand more fully the value of a human life.

This morning, I stumbled upon a second article about Michaela and just had to share. It gives more details about her amazing journey. Even though it’s a Yahoo article (I detest yahoo), give it a chance to alter your own perspective on human life and the gift that it is in itself. The article gives links to some videos of her dancing and my link above has the DWTS feature. She will move your heart.

The Story of a Ballerina from Africa

Advertisements

Baby, You Were Born This Way.

I want to write about something that may be obviously apparent to parents of multiple children.
But to the parents with only one child, they might not yet have fully grasped it. For I only began to REALLY notice it after our second child was born.

Especially to the individuals who’ve never had children before, though, is who I write for: DOUBLY especially, to the pro-choice, pro-contracepting individuals who’ve never had children, is who I write this for; for perhaps they’ve never thought about this to quite the extent they should.

I’m sure there’s much more intellectually stimulating writings than mine out there. In fact, I’m absolutely aware of the world of scientific research to support what I’m sharing.

The average, curious Joe may do a tiny lifting of his finger to find this information. I’ve done it and so can you. I’ve generally found that whether or not I litter my blog with links and endless amounts of scientific research backing up what I have to say, whomever reads my blog ultimately rejects what they’re reading on an obstinately angry prejudice or is open to finding out more and does the research him/herself. So there you go, do what you will.
Moving on!

I believe that babies are born, with their personality, their disposition already intact.
I believe that babies are given their personality from the earliest moments of conception.

Because otherwise, when is a human being given his/her personality, his/her predisposition to the way s/he handles emotion, the way s/he communicates, his/her temperament?

At 6 months in utero? 9 months? AFTER birth, a random string of personality traits, plucked from the combined genetics of the mother and father, just spontaneously erupts within his/her brain?

Or perhaps the baby is born with absolutely no personality whatsoever and it’s only developed after coming into the world and being influenced by the environment and people in the human being’s life?

I believe that common intelligence will tell us that the latter must be mostly false.

Common intelligence, from a parent of more than one child, will observe that at the first moments after birth, if the parent is a perceptive one (trust me, not all are) each child is very different than his/her older sibling.

The cry not only sounds different, but a parent can perceive the urgency, the demanding or un-demanding of the cry. Parents more closely observe, over the next few days after arriving home from the hospital, how their baby handles the daily routine of the family: the changing of the diapers, baths, feedings, naps, “tummy time” …etc. All of these mundane events sound like pathetic material to have for observations and conclusions, but if one can consider the newness of life, how drastically different these events must be for the newly born human life, can one not wonder how that baby might handle the situation, depending on his/her disposition?

The differences are sometimes subtle, but if you’ve had more than one child, you can attest to the observation that the baby isn’t JUST yet another baby, like any other baby. Each new baby speaks his/her own personality differently.

My first son- beginning with his kicks within the womb! -was much more vocal about his presence. He was wound tight: vocal from the very beginning. If a diaper was too tight, or a bottle not warmed enough (I only breastfed him for the first three months: he went on a screaming nursing strike after I felt pushed into introducing the bottle to him very early on.) he let me know, loudly. He was up at all hours of the night. He was walking at 7 months and literally running at 8. He was talking before he was one year old and then varying his octaves and tones of voice before he was a year and a half. (I could ask him to say “momma” in a very high-pitched tone or a very low-pitched tone, and he would do it and then replicate the tones with other words.)

My son, now almost 3 years old, is a running, jumping, rollicking, screaming, yelling, non-stop talking wild child in a blaze of endless energy. I truly believe that he has only now begun to reach a satisfactory communication level (according to him) equalling the personality he has been given.

I believe that as a parent, after giving birth to our children, it’s not a matter of “training my baby” to do this or that, or follow a certain schedule that I desire. I believe that instead, my job is to get to KNOW my child. My already uniquely made child. (hence, my Attachment Parenting style of parenting… check out Ask Dr. Sears and this: )

A baby is a human being before s/he is born. This human being is born with limited abilities to communicate his/her personality until s/he reaches the earliest age possible to fully communicate his/her needs. Until then, a parent needs to be perceptive enough to read and understand the newborn human being’s personality.

My second boy barely cried after birth. He slept through the night from the get-go. He only cried (if I could even call it that) when he was hungry. He grunted instead of bellowing or screaming. He is now 1.5 years old and still has yet to purposely say “mom” or “dad”. He started walking at 10 months. He still only becomes whiny when he’s hungry, if I haven’t already fed him. Normally, he’ll just walk up to me and arch his head backwards and look at me with huge, chocolate brown eyes, raising his arms for me to hold him, and I know it’s the “feed me something, Momma,” look.

One might say that the differences in my son’s personalities lie in how I ate while I was pregnant or whether or not I had medication during birth.

First, being medicated isn’t going to be the source of development for my child’s personality. I was given an epidural for my first, wild boy. For our second, laid-back boy, the epidural was placed too high, never reaching lower than my belly button, and was ceased to be administered 2 hours before I began to push. We know that, instead, medications during labor may affect the health of the baby (i.e. drowsiness, unresponsiveness, lack of interest in nursing right away… etc.).

Secondly, I barely consumed any caffeine at all with my first crazy boy. I drank coffee (nearly daily) and Coke a Cola with our second, very calm boy. This third time around, I have had coffee daily.

I understand that environmental influences DO affect the health of the new human life. I do understand and acknowledge that if I were a smoker or consumed alcohol abusively or ate obese levels of sugar while pregnant, I would definitely be putting the physical health of my child in danger. But I cannot agree that I would be putting his/her personality in danger of alteration. This is a difference that many people misconstrue: especially the pro-choice, pro-contraceptive lot.

These people do not understand, or refuse to acknowledge that at the very moment of conception, parents have created, in union with the Ultimate Creator Himself, a very literal separate and unique human being. Like a snowflake, non-replicable. A snowflake the size of a zygote.

To the people who do not or will not understand this, they view having a child as either a commodity, or as an inconvenience. They may contracept, willfully, yet ignorantly flushing down the toilet all other human life that was “accidentally” conceived while on the Pill or IUD or Patch or shot.

We know this happens for a fact. We know that women get pregnant while contracepting. Google “pregnancy rates among contraceptive users” and you’ll find that even Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood’s research arm) gives statistical evidence of failure among chemical contraceptive use. Yep, there’s failure for all types of birth control, natural and chemical. Honestly, the percentage rate does not matter… 0.1% or 10%, the failure rate is absolutely present, and who am I or you to put full faith into a failing chemical that will harm the newly created life, just banking on the assumption that “certainly I’m not likely to be that 1-10%”?

ESPECIALLY when the percentage of failure weighs upon the death of a human life.

But the even more questionable concern rises when we understand that when pregnant, a woman must not continue using her contraceptive because the chemicals will kill or greatly harm the already conceived life.

THEREFORE, how can we pretend to be blind to the “unsuccessful zygotes” that are the result of the effectiveness of the chemical abortions that take place without the knowledge of the poor mother and father who do not view each human life as sacred and unique (even though they think they do)?

We know that within hours of conception, the brand new human being’s DNA is fully formed (check my link below); DNA unique to the mother, unique to the father, unique to any other human being in the world. Hence, my snowflake allusion.

From what minimal biological knowledge I acquired from my college education, in combination with the light scientific research I have found through general internet searches, I am aware that fundamental personality cells are stored within the human DNA.

I have read that complex personality development is later developed and influenced by environmental forces; Yet we are born, already having been given our base personality. At the moment we are given our DNA. at conception.

Yikes. The people who think that contraceptives are OK and that abortion is OK have some answering to do.

What I have written is in the most elementary, rudimentary basics of human development. Pathetic, to some it may be, I really think that one doesn’t need to be a scientist to fully acknowledge these truths. One only needs to have a willful stubbornness to adhering to his/her personal convenience, though, to reject them. And sadly, so, so many people do.

http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit1.php

Probably the Most Beautiful Birth Story Ever

My friend shared this link with me this morning.  Go on, click on the title, watch the video, if not, at least some of it.

I like photography. I am a passionate pro-lifer. So one could assume that I’d be a fan of photographed births.  But oddly enough, I’m not comfortable with that idea for my own births.  I view giving birth as one of the most intimate events life offers and I ignorantly assume the photographer will take photos of my bum, which of course no one wants to see.
 But this story is one for the documentation.  Not that all births are not.  But this one is more precious to behold because the parents chose life in the face of hearing that their baby is “not compatible with life”, when, as Rick Santorum has shared with media during his presidential campaign, “Almost 100 percent of Trisomy 18 children are encouraged to be aborted”

 This is one of those stories for the opposers who turn the human being into a “thing” touting,  ”IT WON’T HAVE A GOOD LIFE” “WHO WOULD LOVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT?”  ”WHO WOULD WANT TO HAVE THE STRESS OF TAKING CARE OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THEIR FAMILY?”  ”THEY WOULDN’T HAVE A NORMAL LIFE” “IT’S MORE COMPASSIONATE TO JUST KILL IT.”  ”IT’S BETTER OFF DEAD!”

This story is physical proof of love and faith.  This is a story to say to anyone who can’t get it through their minds that not everything can be controlled by man and that even when the doctors tell us the worst of news, a miracle is still possible.  One only needs to have faith as tiny as a mustard seed. 
How could there be regret in that?

“God loved the birds and invented trees. Man loved the birds and invented cages.”  –Jacques Deval

This doctor also delivered my first son. So there I had a very emotional connection to the story. <3
 

Probably the Most Beautiful Birth Story Ever

Authentic Compassion.

Authentic Compassion.

 Society has twisted the value of human life into being dispensable as soon as we are seen as having a less-than-happy life i.e., one of suffering. It welcomes “dignified mercy-killing” and abortion out of “compassion”.  Society is losing its grasp on authentic compassion.  
 

“But there is nothing dignified about either euthanasia or suicide, for each declares that life is utterly undignified and disposable.
[…]
Christian charity calls us to embrace opportunities to selflessly care for the weak and vulnerable even though they may never repay our love and kindness.

Likewise, the afflicted must not view their declining self-sufficiency as a diminishment of their worth. Admittedly, it is both humbling and frightening to envision oneself with an addled mind, foul breath, unkempt hair and the most intimate details of daily hygiene being beyond our capabilities. Yet, such images should not drive us to despair.
Rather, we should see this as a transition from doing to being: our purpose in life at that point is to be the recipient of compassion, generosity and love. Our disabilities can be the occasion for another’s sanctity.What greater cause can we serve than enabling holiness in others? How sad if we reject this calling out of either pride or fear.”

This article, written by Denise J. Hunnell, M.D., talks of the beauty and true humanity to be found in pain and suffering and how it calls others to a life of charity, as well as it calls us, the ones suffering, to humbly accept this charity, aware that it can bring sanctifying grace to those who freely give it!  She defines compassion and compares its definition with how so many today have such a warped understanding of what compassion truly is.

The word compassion actually comes from Latin, and means “to suffer together.” We show authentic compassion when we suffer with someone, not when we get rid of him because his suffering makes us uncomfortable. There is no doubt that it is agony for a husband to watch the woman he married fade before his eyes due to physical or mental disease. This infirm woman is far different from the woman he married. Yet this suffering provides an opportunity for heroic generosity. Offering love to this woman who can no longer reciprocate imitates the love of Christ who took our suffering, weaknesses and sins upon His shoulders when He carried the Cross. 

Though what Ms. Hunnell doesn’t delve into, I shall: 

Pieces of the foundation of the perverted perspective on “compassion” can be found in Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger.  She writes in her 1922 book, The Pivot of Civilization:  

“This book aims to be neither the first word on the tangled problems of human society to-day, nor the last. My aim has been to emphasize, by the use of concrete and challenging examples and neglected facts, the need of a new approach to individual and social problems. Its central challenge is that civilization, in any true sense of the word, is based upon the control and guidance of the great natural instinct of Sex. Mastery of this force is possible only through the instrument of Birth Control.
[…] 
Motherhood has been held universally sacred; yet, as Bouchacourt pointed out, “to-day, the dregs of the human species, the blind, the deaf-mute, the degenerate, the nervous, the vicious, the idiotic, the imbecile, the cretins and the epileptics—are better protected than pregnant women.” The syphilitic, the irresponsible, the feeble-minded are encouraged to breed unhindered, while all the powerful forces of tradition, of custom, or prejudice, have bolstered up the desperate effort to block the inevitable influence of true civilization in spreading the principles of independence, self-reliance, discrimination and foresight upon which the great practice of intelligent parenthood is based.

To-day we are confronted by the results of this official policy. There is no escaping it; there is no explaining it away. Surely it is an amazing and discouraging phenomenon that the very governments that have seen fit to interfere in practically every phase of the normal citizen’s life, dare not attempt to restrain, either by force or persuasion, the moron and the imbecile from producing his large family of feeble-minded offspring.
[…]
But there is a point at which philanthropy may become positively dysgenic, when charity is converted into injustice to the self-supporting citizen, into positive injury to the future of the race. Such a point, it seems obvious, is reached when the incurably defective are permitted to procreate and thus increase their numbers.
[…] 
At the present moment, we are offered three distinct and more or less mutually exclusive policies by which civilization may hope to protect itself and the generations of the future from the allied dangers of imbecility, defect and delinquency. No one can understand the necessity for Birth Control education without a complete comprehension of the dangers, the inadequacies, or the limitations of the present attempts at control, or the proposed programs for social reconstruction and racial regeneration. It is, therefore, necessary to interpret and criticize the three programs offered to meet our emergency. These may be briefly summarized as follows:

(1) Philanthropy and Charity: This is the present and traditional method of meeting the problems of human defect and dependence, of poverty and delinquency. It is emotional, altruistic, at best ameliorative, aiming to meet the individual situation as it arises and presents itself. Its effect in practise is seldom, if ever, truly preventive. Concerned with symptoms, with the allaying of acute and catastrophic miseries, it cannot, if it would, strike at the radical causes of social misery. At its worst, it is sentimental and paternalistic. (1)

These words, written by the founder of the largest abortion business in America, have been echoed and expounded on by many others before, and certainly after Sanger.  The idea that the weak, the feeble-minded and the moron class should be eliminated and squashed out through the sterilization of those within that class is the worst kind of eugenic and discriminatory ideology available.

“Well, certainly, I am not feeble-minded, so this type of thinking has nothing to do with me anyway!” we’ll all say.   

How can you be sure?  How can you be certain that you, you with your family history of breast cancer, of depression or “nervous disorders”, of arthritis, or because you did not have the privilege of attending a higher education program, YOU are not considered part of the “weaker race”, the degenerates, the “incurably defective” as Sanger coins throughout her entire life’s works?  

Her idea of compassion would be to sterilize you with the sexually liberating Birth Control Pill, so that you don’t reproduce that kind of “weed” into society.  
This ideology twists compassion to the complete upside down:  ”I don’t want to take care of you and you can’t possibly WANT to continue making me take care of you, so let’s relieve us all of your life and of your future children.”
 
Sanger dedicates chapter 5 of The Pivot of Civilization to “The Cruelty of Charity”: 

Even if we accept organized charity at its own valuation, and grant that it does the best it can, it is exposed to a more profound criticism. It reveals a fundamental and irremediable defect. Its very success, its very efficiency, its very necessity to the social order, are themselves the most unanswerable indictment. Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease.”

Sanger describes that through this “Christian type of charity” the weak and degenerate are allowed to live on, sucking the life and resources out of a much more worthy society.  

As nearly crazy as that may sound to many (I tried to describe Sanger’s ideology to a family member who absolutely rejected that it couldn’t be possibly accepted in society today),  we see it vividly, erected in inner cities across the United States:

“PLANNED PARENTHOOD: A reason for being.”

A society devoid of love and authentic compassion may freely objectify any human being it deems as unworthy, unwanted, or without reason for being, regardless of what proof science may provide us.  

it’s just a fetus, not a human being, just a clump of cells“ 

And here we are today, with a governmental administration staunchly in support of such an ideology.  It’s real folks. 

(1) Pivot of Civilization source: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1689/1689-h/1689-h.htm

Authentic Compassion.