Personal politics

Recently, Gianna Jessen sang the national anthem at Colorado's House of Representatives and a controversy erupted.

Jessen was born with cerebral palsy and was told by doctors that she would never survive. They were wrong. Twenty-nine years later she travels across the country singing and raising awareness for her disease.

She continues to defy the odds. She was told she would never lift 30 pounds with her legs - she leg presses 200. Despite being told she could not walk, she recently completed the London Marathon with bloody feet and ching joints to raise money and awareness for cerebal palsy.

The circumstances surrounding the performance of this inspiring young lady was called "extremely rude" by the Democratic majority leader in Colorado's House, because of one little fact.

Jessen is an abortion survivor.

After the House gave Jessen a long ovation twice, Rep. Ted Harvey, who brought Jessen, said:

Mr. Speaker, members, if you would allow me just a few more moments I would appreciate your time.

My name is Ted Harvey, not Paul Harvey, but, please, let me tell you the rest of the story.

The cause of Gianna's cerebral palsy is not because of some biological freak of nature, but rather the choice of her mother.

You see when her biological mother was 17-years-old and 7-and-a-half months pregnant, she went to a Planned Parenthood clinic to seek a late-term abortion. The abortionist performed a saline abortion on this 17-year-old girl. This procedure requires the injection of a high concentration of saline into the mother's womb, which the fetus is then bathed in and swallows, which results in the fetus being burned to death, inside and out. Within 24 hours the results are normally an induced, still-born abortion.

As Gianna can testify, the procedure is not always 100 percent effective. Gianna is an aborted late-term fetus who was born alive. The high concentration of saline in the womb for 24 hours resulted in a lack of oxygen to her brain and is the cause of her cerebral palsy.

Members, today, we are going to recognize the 90th anniversary of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood…

At that point he was stopped by the Speaker of the House, who said Harvey was violating the rules by debating a matter before the House in an introduction. Harvey concluded, "Mr. Speaker, I understand. I just wanted to put a face to what we are celebrating today."

That day the Democrats in the House were going to honor Planned Parenthood for their 90 years in Colorado. Harvey simply pointed out exactly what was being honored.

He writes about what happened next:

The House majority leader wouldn't talk to me the rest of the day.

Was it because I introduced an abortion survivor, or was it because we touched her soul? She could congratulate an inspirational cerebral palsy victim and advocate, but was outraged when she discovered that the person she congratulated was also an abortion survivor.

This left many in the House and the media, fuming. The Dever Post ran a story quoting the majority leader Alice Madden, who sponsored the measure to recognize Planned Parenthood, and a spokeswoman from Planned Parenthood. Madden told the Post, ""I think it was amazingly rude to use a human being as an example of his personal politics."

Harvey responded: "Yes, Representative Madden, Gianna Jessen is a human being. She was when she was in her mother's womb, and she was when she sang the national anthem on the floor of the Colorado House of Representatives."

This is the face of our recent discussion. Gianna is not some distant policy idea. She is a real, breathing human being, whose very life screams the importance and value of life.

For her part Jessen was glad that Harvey did what he did. "We need to discuss the humanity of it. I'm glad to be able to speak up for children in the womb," she said. "If abortion is about women's rights, where were my rights?"

Does Gianna not have the "choice" to decide if her live is worth living? Does she not have the "right" to continue living even though someone else may not inconvenience themselves want her to "suffer?"

I know another person who also by his very presence testifies that life should be valued, no matter what embryonic test may indicate - my son Wesley.

My wife and I were both unemployed with no money or job prospects when we found out we were pregnant. We had no idea how to prepare for this. After one of the ultrasounds, they asked us if we could step into the doctor's office and wait for him.

When he arrived, he showed us a tiny speck on Wesley's tiny brain. He told us that this could indicate severe brain damage, possibly a still-birth or it could be nothing. Most of what he said after that is a blur. My mind was swirling. I did catch one thing toward the end of him talking to us. He told us that he hated to tell us this and to cause us to worry, but he had to because if we had a baby with a birth defect we could sue him and his office for not giving us the chance to abort Wesley.

At some point during his speech, he told us that they could do more testing which may or may not clear up the situation. He also indicated that a small, but significant number of babies die from the embryonic tests that would be done. We, of course, said no to any more testing. We prayed and accepted whatever God wanted to give us.

Wesley was born a perfectly healthy baby and is still a perfectly healthy boy (exept for the fact that he no longer has a fingerprint on one of his fingers, but that is a recent thing due to hot glue and another long story). We would have loved and cherished him regardless if he had been born and lived with a mental defect or even if he had only lived a few minutes. He would still be our son.

This is one of the reasons I bristle when someone challenges my pro-life position, indicating it would change depending on the circumstances. I have been in the situation where many people have killed their babies. My wife and I lived it, we intentionally chose life.

I can now add Gianna to Wesley and the other personal reasons, why I am vehemetly opposed to the murder of unborn children. The Colorado House of Representatives can celebrate Planned Parenthood, I will choose to celebrate the lives of Gianna and Wesley - two individuals who in different ways survived the "planning" of groups like Planned Parenthood.

Comments

[Cineaste]

Aaron, are you a fundamentalist in your beliefs about abortion in that human life starts at the moment of conception? Do you believe abortion should be illegal even in cases of incest, rape and when the mother's life is in danger?

[seeker]

Aaron, are you a fundamentalist in your beliefs about abortion in that human life starts at the moment of conception?
And have you stopped beating your wife?

Hey Cin, are you a fundamentalist in your beliefs about abortion in that it should not be prohibited by government, even through the third trimester?

[seeker]

The circumstances surrounding the performance of this inspiring young lady was called "extremely rude" by the Democratic majority leader in Colorado's House, because of one little fact.

Wait. These are the same people who parade widows and other victims like Christopher Reeve out to pimp their causes so that we look like cads for opposing them?

In this case, those who support abortion are cads, and they should be ashamed, since her survival is directly associated with the evil they promote.

[Cineaste]

And have you stopped beating your wife?

I'm not married and, I might add, enjoying sex before marriage with my girl friend. Also, when I use the term fundamentalist I mean...

fun·da·men·tal·ism Audio pronunciation of "fundamentalist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

See, this word could be used to describe you and Aaron but probably not secular people.

[Sam Wilkinson]

Aaron,

Your experience is fantastic. Congratulations. That doesn't mean you get to decide for EVERYBODY ELSE. That's the damned issue. Be against abortion; scream it to the heavens. But don't force your ideas on everybody else. That's the point. Win the individual arguments, but don't take a woman's right to her own body away from you.

[seeker]

And have you stopped beating your wife?
Actually, I was asking Aaron an additional question akin to the pejorative one you asked him.

Then I asked you the same question in the manner you asked Aaron.

Your appeal to fundamentalism misses my point. You asked a loaded question. I just turned it around on you to show you how judgmental your question is. Obviously, you found it offensive, so I rest my case.

[Cineaste]

Obviously, you found it offensive

Wrong again :) Just because I correct your usage of the term "fundamentalist" does not mean I have taken offense. If I took serious offense at something, my language would leave no doubt.

Oh and Aaron, Seeker wants to know if you've stopped beating his wife.

[Aaron]

With abortion, I guess I am a fundamentalist. The only exception I would allow we be for life of the mother - because there is a choice between two lives and I would allow that option (my wife would not).

I do believe life begins at conception, but I would be willing to go along with legislation that says recognized life begins at the first sign of brain waves or heartbeat (the opposite of what the state uses to declare death. You die when you don't have brainwaves or a heartbeat, so legally you should be alive when you have those.

Sam, I know you like to frame the gay rights movement in terms of civil rights, so how about the abortion issue?

That is fantastic if you want to serve black people, but that doesn't not mean you get to decide it for EVERYBODY ELSE. Be against slavery, scream it to the heavens. But don't force your ideas on everybody else. That's the point. Win the individual arguments, but don't take a slave owner's right to his property away from them.

I don't use the person argument in terms of the gay rights debate. I don't say "gay people aren't people so we can do what we want to them." But the same arguments are used for slavery and abortion. Blacks were not considered full people, neither are unborn babies. Both are horrible stains on this nation. One we learned from and outlawed, the other we still justify.

You want to talk about second-class citizens, at least gay people (who are alive) had the chance to live and breathe. Millions of unborn babies are killed and don't get that chance. They have no rights. You can kill them if you don't feel like taking care of them. You can kill them if you made a mistake. You can kill them if you aren't ready, etc.

This is about do we allow murder or not. This is not an issue that you can say, fine for you, but not for me. My question is - is it fine for the baby, who gets saline injected into the womb and is burned inside and out and suffocates to death or the one who gets scissors jabbed into the back of their head and has their brains suctioned out, or the one who has their limbs and head chopped off inside the womb. Is it fine for them?

You say that you are for allowing most things until it hurts someone, well abortion hurts, in the worst way, the baby. Ask people who survived abortions how they feel about it. Ask them if it hurts them. Then come back to me on this issue.

[Sam Wilkinson]

(Although we're discussing abortion Aaron, I'd like to point out that the position shared by both you and other Christians is that gays are lesser human beings. You support legal declarations that their love and dedication is worth less than what you share with your wife. I don't see how that can be anything other than believing that gays are not only legally second class citizens, but also second class human beings.)

Make all the emotional appeals you want Aaron, but you shouldn't have the freedom to make women's decisions for them, and neither should your wife. Its great that you're morally opposed to abortion, and maybe birth control, but the idea that those views would be sanctified in law are horrifying. You Christians aren't RIGHT about everything. One day you'll figure that out.

[seeker]

I do believe life begins at conception, but I would be willing to go along with legislation that says recognized life begins at the first sign of brain waves or heartbeat (the opposite of what the state uses to declare death. You die when you don't have brainwaves or a heartbeat, so legally you should be alive when you have those.
Wow Aaron, have I won you over to my side on that?

, I'd like to point out that the position shared by both you and other Christians is that gays are lesser human beings.
That's how you interpret it, but Christiand don't feel or view it that way. We see all of us as sinners worthy of love, but pro-gay politics is promoting sin as a norm. We don't think of ourselves as better, we think of homosexuality as sinful. We think gays have just as much value and worth as any other person. So called Christians like Fred Phelps who says that God hates fags is also promoting sin, but not as second class citizens.

but the idea that those views would be sanctified in law are horrifying.
That's because you don't see the child as having a "right to life" that is protected by the government. Think of it as infanctide. If I take away your right to kill your children, are you horrified? Why not?

Christians are right about this one, and not because they are Christian. Abortion is pure evil, it is mass murder. I don't need a bible to tell me that. Those who oppose it in the name of rights need to understand that we all have limited rights. Go read www.c-ral.org.

[Sam Wilkinson]

Excuse me Seeker, but if you're all sinners, then you should all be treated equally under the law, which is not currently occuring. You're proposing second class citizenship (and personhood) for gays.

Also, you arguing about "limited rights" is hilarious, because you're always encouraging us to limit somebody else's rights. I'm sure you'd object to the idea of "limited rights" if we were limiting you.

[Aaron]

To the gay argument - I don't think any gay person is any less than me. I don't think they love their partners any less than I love my wife, but I also do not think they should have the ability to redefine what marriage is. I do think they should have some type of way to get visitation and inheritance rights, etc.

I don't view them or regard them as second class anything, much less human beings. You stereotype and twist my position into that. What do you regard unborn babies as? Physically they are human beings, so what do you view them as?

Sam, when you carry your arguments about "you can't tell someone else what not to do" to the end - why not murder? why not anything and everything? First you say as long as it doesn't hurt anyone - but abortion hurts unborn babies.

Now I don't have the right to take away someone else's rights. On that issue I would argue several things.

1) In and of myself I do not, but the nation as a whole does. We take away the rights of a convicted felon - they can no longer vote. So there are instances where rights are taken away.

2) I don't think killing a baby is a right. You will not and cannot find that in the Constitution. There is an insinuated right to privacy which got pulled and stretched to develop some imaginary right to an abortion. It has never been in the Constitution. A women does not have the right to kill a baby regardless of her "privacy" or not.

3) My faith does influence this, but it is not the only reason I am pro-life. Many atheists and agnostics are pro-life as well. They understand that unless we protect life at the "lower" levels, it will degrade human life at all levels. We see the logic behind abortion already going farther. Singer at Princeton says we should be able to kill babies up to the age of 3 (I think) because they have no real understanding and cannot take care of themselves. We see in some Nordic nations where people are being euthenized against their will to make more room and clear out some hospital beds. That is where the logic of some human life is more valuable than others leads to. I can hear the Animal Farm pigs now "All animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others."

4) I think those views are already law - All citizens are entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It's hard to have liberty and pursue happiness if you don't have the right to life.

Seeker, if I had my wish - abortion would be outlawed in every phase, but I also understand in a secular realm a good first step is to recognize life with the brain waves and heartbeat. It only makes sense because the opposite is when the state recognizes death.

[Sam Wilkinson]

Aaron,

You MUST believe that gays are second class human beings; you actively seek for them to be TREATED as such. Come on now, you have to admit that taking a position that the love of gays should be LEGALLY less than yours renders them second class.

The idea that you find the right to privacy questionable really makes me wonder about your commitment to anything Aaron. How can you possibly believe that individuals don't know what's best for themselves? How can you possibly believve that the right to privacy is up in the air?

Finally, I'm just confused as to why you believe that you should make decisions for other people. But how about we'll trade; you get to tell all women what to do with their bodies, and I get to decide how all Christians raise their kids? Why don't we just trade those, and you'll get a world without abortion, and I'll get a world without Christians. It seems like a fair trade, particularly since you seem to believe that the right to privacy shouldn't exist.

[Aaron]

Their love is not less than mine. The law doesn't say anything about love. When did we start legislating love? America simply recognizes one male, one female marriage. That does not insinuate anyone does not love someone else in the same way.

How does quesitoning whether an inferred right from the Constituion make you "wonder about [my] comitment to anything?" The Constitution specifically lists rights that we have. I would never mess with those. Privacy may be infered from the Constitution, it is a debate to have, but it is an even farther jump to say you have the right to privacy which means you can kill your unborn child.

When did the questioning the right to privacy become the believing "individuals don't know what's best for themselves?" That has nothing to do with this argument.

Those get abortions are considering what they think is best for them, it's that other helpless person that is not considered in the equation.

You want to make a trade, since we are pretending we are rulers of the world, I will make a trade. I will give you gay marriage if you outlaw abortion. Is that a fair trade?

[seeker]

Also, you arguing about "limited rights" is hilarious, because you're always encouraging us to limit somebody else's rights. I'm sure you'd object to the idea of "limited rights" if we were limiting you.
Actually, my rights are limited. I have freedom of speech, but can't slander. I can't sell porno to minors. I can't refuse housing to gays or black people as a landlord. I can't legally marry two women. In fact, we all have limited rights based on a balance of rights.

Limiting marriage to one man and one woman is just setting another limit that already exists (we've outlawed polygamy, for right or wrong). I have no problem setting logical limits to rights to protect individuals and society from harm. I am not a libertarian.

You MUST believe that gays are second class human beings; you actively seek for them to be TREATED as such.
Not any more than I think polygamists or landlords are. They have limited rights, which is fine with me.

You want to make a trade, since we are pretending we are rulers of the world, I will make a trade. I will give you gay marriage if you outlaw abortion. Is that a fair trade?
I would take that trade in a heartbeat, pun intended. Abortion is way more destructive than gay marriage.

[Sam Wilkinson]

Unless you're aggressively hoping to limit the housing that you rent Seeker, none of those examples that you give are valid, because you have no interest in: slandering, selling porno, marrying two women. As I obviously meant, you would object to limited freedoms if YOUR freedoms were limited - for instance, if church attendence were limited because our society suffers as result of religion. At that point, your support of "limited rights" would evaporate immediately.

Or would you accept that you could no longer attend church?

[seeker]

Look, the fact is, I'm making the argument that we limit people's rights every day. Why are my rights not as "limited" as those who enjoy porno and cigarettes? Because I abstain from most unethical and immoral, destructive behaviors (except for maybe speeding ;), so I am self-controlled rather than feeling the pinch of government control.