Who is in charge of a fetus? The Beast of Terror or Parents of
Vigilance? That is the question being posed in Florida
where the state appointed a guardian to protect the rights of an
unborn child whose mother, a mentally handicapped rape victim,
was found incompetent to make decisions. The case brings
to the surface a tough question society must ask: "Who is
ultimately in charge of the Children's Children's Children?"
See how you agree or disagree.
January 11, 2004—Ground Zero Plus 851
Who Is In Charge Of The Fetus'
Rights--The Beast of Terror Or Parents of Vigilance?
New York, N.Y.--Jan. 11, 2004 -- The baby was born, safe and sound, to
a 22-year-old mentally handicapped patient named only as J.D.S in
court papers. She has the mental capacity of a 4- to
5-year-old, and was raped by a 75-year-old husband of the woman who
ran the home for the mentally challenged in Florida.
Who is in
charge of fetuses' rights?
The pregnancy brings up the question: Who's
in charge of the fetuses' rights, the Beast of Terror or the Parents
During the pregnancy the State of Florida sought
to become the protective guardian of the unborn fetus, fearful that
the guardians of J.D.S. might seek an abortion or not care for
the fetus properly.
The Florida Circuit Court struck down the state's
request, saying that for a fetus to be appointed a guardian, it must
be considered a "person." Legally, abortion laws stemming from
Roe v. Wade, exclude the fetus from being a person.
Abortion advocates hailed the decision.
Fearful the State of Florida was attempting to end-run abortion laws
by creating "rights" for the unborn, the pro-abortion groups cheered
individual and the state clash in a search for power
When tyranny and oppression of the state is
extended to its extreme, and individual rights are stretched in the
opposite direction, both end up at the same point. The
anarchist and Terrorist become the same. Both make up
their own rules, their own regulations to fit their own needs, their
Civil liberties ultimately give full and complete
rights to the individual, and fight to protect those rights from the
state. A serial killer who is improperly arrested
can be set free because of the state's mistakes.
Both the individual and the state clash in a
search for power. A parent who abuses a child
emotionally by calling the child "stupid" has not committed a crime.
But the parent who takes a lash to the child's back and physically
damages the child's flesh may be arrested for abuse if his or her
crimes are found out.
The rights of the innocent are precarious
indeed. At what point can the state, society, step in and
defend the rights of another who appears to be a potential victim?
Do we say "Not
my business" when we hear a crying child?
If one hears the cries of a child
next door, does one have a duty to pick up a phone and call the
authorities? Or, to go bang on the door and demand an
explanation of what's going on? Or, does one just sit in a
pool of Complacency and shrug, saying: "Not my business."
An unborn fetus. Whether
in the body of a mentally handicapped person or a healthy "normal"
one, who is ultimately in charge of that child's rights to life?
At what point does society have a
duty to protect its future progeny over the rights of the individual?
It is easy to
turn our heads about a fetus....it is hidden from our view
easy to turn our heads about a fetus. We cannot see its face.
We cannot feel its tiny fingers wrapping around our hand, or smell the
innocence of its newborn flesh breathing life.
Ignorance is bliss. The fetus is hidden from our view.
We are blind to its existence, and, because we cannot see it, we give
it no rights of a living being.
Until the fetus is born, until it
comes into view, expelled from its mother's womb, it is not a
Therefore, we cannot protect it as we
can the moment it enters this world in a public display called
childbirth. Once the child slides into the hands of the midwife
or doctor, it is alive with rights. We now have a "duty"
to guard it, as we do all children.
But is that right?
Does it require a child to be
born before our duty as Parents, Grandparents, Citizens and Loved Ones
of Vigilance comes into play?
The farmer loves the seeds he
plants and cares for them before they burst through the soil because
he knows the seed is source of the plant, the core of the fruits of
the beginning of life
The seed of conception in the soil of a womb
is the beginning of life. And, even though the legal
systems in the United States and other nations may deny the legal
rights of the fetus as a "person" there can be no question that life
exists. And with life goes rights.
But who is duty-bound to defend
those rights? Is it the law or the people?
A Parent of Vigilance knows the
answer without having to go to law school. The right of
the child begins at conception. But, where is its
protection when the soil in which the seed is planted is not capable
of making the decisions necessary to insure it will be safe throughout
its gestation? Who has the right to terminate such
Guardianship, which is the core
of the Florida issue, clashed between individual and the state.
Does the whole of society have more of a duty to the future of a child
than the parent or guardian of that child?
Individual rights shouts no!
State management shouts yes!
But, where is the Voice of the
Parents of Vigilance?
The Parents of Vigilance
have the responsibility and duty to protect all children
If children represent the future of our
world, just as the seeds of the farmer represent the future of his
harvest, then ultimately don't the Parents of Vigilance have the
responsibility and duty to protect not only their own children, but
the safety and security of all children.
The Principles of Vigilance say that
three things comprise the duty of a Parent of Vigilance.
These three Principles include teaching children how Courage
overpowers Fear, how Conviction must trump Intimidation, and that
Right Action that benefit the Children's Children's Children must
exceed the desire for Complacency, the inaction, the no action on
issues that endangers the future.
A Parent of Vigilance is not
responsible just for his or her own children, the first generation,
but is responsible for three following generations--the Children's
clashed between the individual and the state
By taking on the duty of doing
Right Actions that benefit the Children's Children's Children, the
Parent of Vigilance now sees all children as their own, part of a
Family of Vigilance. Instead of sitting and
listening to the screams of a child next door, the Parent of Vigilance
hears the screams of his or her own child. And, is forced
to act in accordance.
To not act means the Parent of
Vigilance has given the Beast of Terror the right to do what he
desires to do with impunity. It means there are no checks
and balances to Terrorism, for if we are not forced to act in behalf
of protecting future generations, the desire to "not get involved
because it isn't our business" overwhelms us. We sink into
the quagmire of Complacency. We turn our heads and ignore
the "fetus" crying out next door.
the "fetus" in our own children"
about the "fetus" in our own children. Each child is
a living "fetus." After being born, the child gestates its
emotional being. Like the child in the womb, it
begins to grow its "being" as a person. It seeks to "seed"
itself in rich soil, full of love and care.
If the child's parents are
intolerant, inconsiderate, abuse to the child's emotional "fetus" the
child will grow up in the shadows of Fear, Intimidation and
Complacency. It will be deformed. Its roots will be
shallow. It will bear little fruit, for its parents have
neglected to rip out the Weeds of Terrorism that can strangle the
child's sense of humanity, its thirst to be productive.
The Emotionally abused child--the one who
is told he or she isn't loved, or treated as an object, or denied the
guiding hand of a loving guardian--becomes a weed in a garden.
The child becomes crippled by his or her upbringing, spreading his or
her victimization to everything the child touches, struggling to try
and achieve a sense of worth when inside the child feels as worthless
as a rock.
Who is the guardian of this child?
The issue of the "fetuses'" rights in
Florida is not one that can be quickly discounted to the issue of a
mentally challenged young woman having a child. It
permeates everything society is about.
Society, the Children's Children's
Children, has a right to grow and prosper. We, as Parents
of Vigilance, have a duty to not turn our heads to the issue of
individual rights and ignore the true issue--the Rights of Future
If we are true Parents of Vigilance, we
must assume a sincere concern for the duty and role of parenthood.
We must look upon all children, born and unborn, as our wards.
We must ask: "What can all of us do to protect the children's
When the question is put on the table:
"What is the right thing to do that protects the rights of the
Children's Children's Children?" we find that we put our personal
agendas to the side.
Individuality isn't lost in this
It is protected.
protect the child as he or she grows?
when we fight to protect the rights of the individual in the form of a
child's right to live and grow without the threat of Fear,
Intimidation and Complacency, have we truly ensured the "Right of the
Protecting an adult's right is not an
act of Vigilance. In the long-run, it is an act of Terrorism,
for when the adult's rights supercede the rights of the child, then we
have committed an act of barbarism. We have cannibalized
our children. We have eaten the seeds that represent the fruit
of the future.
The state of Florida fought for the
rights of an unborn child. It may have lost the battle, but it
won the war. The child was born.
Now, who will protect it as it grows?
Jan 10--Launching The
Beast Of Terror To Mars & The Moon