For Love of Life

One more fascinating story of amazing medical advances and the tenacity of the human spirit.
It's the story of Leah Bowlen. At approximately 18 weeks in the womb doctors discovered that she was suffering from Amniotic Band Syndrome. If nothing was done she risked losing her feet, and possibly her life. At 22 weeks the doctors made medical history by successfully surgically repairing one of her feet while in the womb. At 30 weeks she was born and underwent surgery to repair her other foot. Three weeks later, Leah contracted meningitis. Thanks to the love and commitment of her parents, and the skill and dedication of the doctors Leah is now about 4 1/2 months old. All indications are that, with a little extra care, she will grow up to lead a fairly normal, healthy life.

This story highlights several things for me. Two I have already mentioned. The advancements in medical technology never cease to amaze me, even things we sometimes take for granted, cesarean section births, pacemakers, etc. How many people that would be either severely handicapped or deceased 100 years ago lead normal healthy lives today? Thanks to modern medical advances.
I also mentioned the tenacity of the human spirit. The tenacity of a baby to cling to life despite repeated sickness and injury, despite surgery, despite being born prematurely. She persevered and held on to her will to live. The tenacity of her parents to not accept the situation, but to pursue all options available to save their child, even a child only 18 weeks in the womb.

The third item, and the one I haven't mentioned yet, is the hypocrisy and inconsistency of society as evidenced by the reporting of this story. This story was reported in many outlets; a few examples can be found here, here, and here. What do they have in common? They all refer to Leah throughout the story either by her name, "Leah," as "a baby," or "an unborn baby." For some reason she is not referred to exclusively as a fetus, or "a mass of cells" or a morally ambiguous "choice." Are we really to believe that the desires of the parents literally change the definition of the child inside the mother? It appears the only difference between an "unborn baby" and "a mass of cells" is whether the parents decide to pursue the health and well being of the baby, or its death. How we feel about a thing doesn't change what it is. How can we both praise a doctor for going into the womb to save a baby's life, and fail to condemn a doctor that goes into the womb to take a baby's life?

That is exactly what our culture would have us do. Our culture would have us accept both situations as perfectly legitimate "options." We are not meant to live with such a fractured view of morality and reality. In our souls we know that it can't be both ways, it has to be either a baby, or inert tissue to be disposed of at a whim. We cannot live with ourselves if we try to believe both, as our culture would have us do. Something will eventually have to give.

~Gabriel