#Prolife QOTD: Woman explains why she decided to give birth to “severely disabled” baby

The Daily Mail Online (UK) writes about a heartbreaking case of a woman faced with difficult choices in the latter stages of her pregnancy (via @GaltsGirl):

A mother was unable to abort her severely disabled son despite doctors’ warnings after seeing her baby’s smile in a 3D scan picture.

Katyia Rowe was told her baby’s brain had not formed properly and that he would never walk or talk and would need 24-hour care.

But after seeing real-time moving scans of him smiling, blowing bubbles, kicking and waving his arms she made the heartbreaking decision to go through with the birth.

Tragically Lucian, as she named him, died nine hours after he was born.

Despite the ordeal, Ms Rowe said she had no regrets going through with the birth as she was able to cuddle her baby son.

Katyia, 26, a training administrator, said: ‘We were devastated to be told our son’s brain abnormalities were so severe they were life limiting we should consider a termination.

‘Further scans were arranged to asses the extent of his disabilities but when I saw him smiling and playing inside me I knew I couldn’t end his life.

If he could smile and play and feel then despite his disabilities he deserved to enjoy whatever life he had left, no matter how short. Just because his life would be shorter or different, didn’t mean he didn’t deserve to experience it.

‘As long as he was pain free I vowed to let him enjoy his life both while inside me and outside, no matter how long that be.’

[…]

The couple were offered the chance to terminate the baby at 24-weeks.

But despite his poor prognosis, being able to watch her son in real time 3D scans during the screening tests, Miss Rowe said she was astonished to see him smiling, blowing bubbles, kicking and waving his arms.

She said: ‘Despite all the awful things I was being told, while he was inside me his quality of life looked to be wonderful and no different to any other baby’s, he was a joy to watch. 

‘I was told he would never walk or talk yet the scans showed him constantly wriggling and moving. 

‘As I watched I knew that while I was carrying him he still had a quality of life and it was my duty as a mother to protect that no matter how long he had left, he deserved to live.’

Kleenex, anyone? Sigh.

 

What then-Senator Obama thought about raising the debt ceiling in 2006 – vs. now

Via a January 3, 2011 National Review Online post by Katrina Trinko:

Here are Obama’s thoughts on the debt limit in 2006, when he voted against increasing the ceiling:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to increase the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion respectively, Obama did not bother to vote. (He did vote for TARP, which increased the debt limit by $700 billion.)

How he feels about it now as President:

“They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy,” Obama said. “The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip.”

“While I’m willing to compromise and find common ground over how to reduce our deficit, America cannot afford another debate with this Congress over how to pay the bills they’ve already racked up,” Obama said in the East Room of the White House. “To even entertain the idea of this happening, of America not paying its bills, is irresponsible. It’s absurd.”

Obama made clear he’s tired of the frequent negotiations over major fiscal issues and said he wants a longer-term agreement. “We’ve got to break the habit of negotiating through crisis over and over again,” he said. “I am not going to have a monthly or every-three-months conversation about whether or not we pay our bills.”

Can you count the lies told there? Especially in the second paragraph. “Compromise” and “find common ground over how to reduce our deficit”? That’s got to be a candidate for whopper of the year, and we’re not even out of January yet.

And I’m not sure what his big deal against negotiations is when it comes to raising the debt ceiling. Negotiations over matters like this are fairly routine.

Just kidding – I know darned well why he’s so against negotiations (read: debate) with the political opposition.  Most dictatorial-like world leaders are.

Marco Rubio tells Colin Powell to stop being a tool

**Posted by Phineas

Victim of Republican Intolerance?

Victim of Republican Intolerance?

Well, not in so many words, but that was the gist of the Florida senator’s remarks during an interview this morning, when asked about former-Secretary of State Powell’s assertions of hidden racism in the Republican party:

I disagree with General Powell’s assessment of the Republican Party today,” Rubio said.

“The Republican Party is the party that [has] placed two Hispanics in the U.S. Senate,” Rubio told Tantros, “and we have an African-American senator in the United States Senate.”

Republican intolerance is so bad that, not only do we include two Hispanics (Rubio, Cruz) and one Black (Scott), but also two governors of Indian descent (Haley, Jindal) and two of Latin origin (Martinez, Sandoval). Much as I loathe ethnic bean-counting (1), if the Democrats are going to trot out their useful idiots to smear Republicans and conservatives with the race card, then it’s fair to ask where are the Democrats’ high-level minority leaders?

They might find the answer “embarrassing as Hell:”

Inclusive?

Inclusive?

And let’s not forget Colin Powell, himself, who was made Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State under Republican administrations, and has at times almost been begged to be that party’s candidate for president.

Yeah, that’s “intolerant,” all right. Everyone knows that appointment to the senior-most position in the president’s cabinet, fourth in line from the Oval Office, is just another demeaning form of tokenism.

What a shnook.

RELATED: “Dark vein of intolerance,” Mr. Secretary? Perhaps you need a little lesson about the Democrats’ dirty history.

PS: Funny how Powell was trotted out to play the race card right after the storm broke over the photo above. Almost as if the administration needed a distraction…

UPDATE: I want everyone reading this to look at these two pictures and tell me which administration seems more genuinely “diverse and inclusive.”

Footnote:
(1) As a conservative, I care about a person’s principles and the content of their character, not irrelevancies such as skin color, ethnicity, or gender. I’ll leave that insulting game to Democrats and their willing dupes.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)