:: The S.I.C.L.E. Cell ::

my view from the prison of a SICLE (Self-Imposed Child Loss Experience) due to debilitating maternal disease
:: welcome to The S.I.C.L.E. Cell :: bloghome
SEARCH THE CELL Google Custom Search
| thesiclecell@yahoo.com ::
:: After abortion[>]
:: RealChoice[>]
:: Silent Rain Drops[>]
:: Stanek![>]

:: Sunday, May 01, 2005 ::

"Angele's Friend (AF): It's a women's clinic. . . . My friend is having an abortion and the baby was born alive. . . . They're not allowing her to use the phone there. They're wanting the baby to die!

OFD: She wants the baby to live?

AF: That's correct. . . . [She] said the baby was just born and it was alive and they were wanting her to leave it in the toilet and, uh, just let it die, and she's not wanting that to happen."

Listen to talk radio on Rowan.

Obviously there are many outrageous aspects of this case, but two that are on the tip of my tongue are:

1. Why is the county M.E. refusing autopsy?

Anyone who watches Dr. G knows that she often autopsies cases in which she has absolutely no suspicions of sinister circumstances, for the sole purpose of comforting a survivor who does have questions. She doesn't want the survivor to have to live the rest of his life with those types of concerns. People obvioulsy have questions in this case, and it is important to Rowan's mother that those questions be answered. So what's the problem??? It doesn't seem beyond the power of the M.E. to offer Rowan's mother an autopsy for compassionate reasons. Unless of course the M.E. does not want to risk the possiblity of exposing the fact that this child died with toilet water in his lungs/belly. Because that, my friends, would mean that he had been born alive, and that would lend yet another level of credibility to Angele's account of events, and that might somehow hurt abortion.

2. Could abortion business staff possibly use poorer judgement in their denial that this happened? What could they possibly accomplish by accusing Rowan's mother of lying?

What mother in the world would come forward with pictures of her dead child, aborted in the second trimester, and splash them all over the Internet for God and everybody to see if she were lying? This is not something you lie about to get attention or money or really anything that I can think of.

After delivering her living son into a toilet, she herself says:

"The moment I saw Rowan . . . I cannot tell you the sickness that came over me and the self-loathing."

Any rational human being can see that this is not a woman who is proud of her involvement in this experience. She does not think that listeners will regard her with envy or deep respect at hearing what she has to say. All at once, the emotionally eviscerating image of her son dying in a toilet revealed to her what a terrible thing it is that she participated in. Her self-described culpability is palpable. It is nothing short of a miracle that she would even come forward with the truth in this manner. Her child just died this month!

In memory of her precious son, and for the sake of others, she has disregarded concern for herself and come forward to expose, in painful, intricate detail, the devastating circumstances surrounding her self-imposed child loss experience. In doing so, she opens herself up to relentless questioning, to tremendous criticism from people who feel threatened by the truth, and to the red fury of people who just plain love to hate women who have aborted children.

Surely this is not a woman who is lying, and America should listen to every word she has to utter.

My fears of course are that only the sectarian media will pick this story up, that this will be yet another example of "preaching to the choir". Would that the world would care about Angele and Rowan... and all the others.

:: ashli 12:26 AM # ::

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?