Adherents to the “quality of life ethic” and those of a utilitarian mindset would have been quite content to see the little girl who is the subject of this story die, rather than live with the cognitive and developmental impairments caused by having half her brain surgically removed. Thankfully, her parents didn’t see Keeley as being any less worthy of life because she would have profound cognitive and developmental impairments.
Keeley’s story is nothing short of heartwarming and inspirational. This little girl who is essentially up against a world that would argue she doesn’t deserve to be alive or is really nothing more than a vegetable, is improving every day and surrounded by family and friends who love her.
JUST like lots of children her age, little Keeley Green is a bright and mischievous, loves music and playing tricks but she is not like other kids. She has only half a brain.
Keeley, 5, was forced to have surgery to remove the left side of her brain when she was only 16 months old, the victim of a rare neurological condition that was causing uncontrollable seizures.
But her parents, Amanda and Daniel Green, of Bundaberg, have seen their baby emerge from those dark days when her life hung in the balance to become a little girl who is winning small battles in her quest for a normal life.
So remarkable has been her recovery that her parents are starting to dream of what the future might hold.
“She has so much to offer this world,” Mrs Green said.
“Such important lessons to teach other people. She fights when there’s no fight left in anyone else.
Isn’t it reassuring that there are still parents who love and care for their children with special needs and communities that embrace them with open arms?
Thanks for sharing this! All such examples need to be illustrated and celebrated.
Sam Pierce’s last blog post..How About Secretary Of Education Ayers?
She is a doll
Sunflower Desert’s last blog post..Palin Wows the GOP Faithful
What a great story. That is one amazing little girl - and family. It always makes me wonder how people like Peter Singer must live - what shallow, empty lives if they are not the least bit affected by the goodness of other human beings, regardless of their brainpower.
I find the utilitarian mindset fascinating.
For instance, if you look at the ultimate utilitarian (in the sense used in this article), Hitler:
He was anti-abortion, anti-birth control. He was against using medical intervention to prevent the spread of syphilis, because he felt that it would impede public morality. He didn’t believe in death with dignity (suicide was a sin). He considered condoms to be an affront to Christian values…but he had no trouble with the death penalty for those he considered useless, or dangerously criminal.
Teresa’s last blog post..Why is this so difficult to understand?
Teresa,
I think we can all agree that Hitler wasn’t pro-life.
You’re Right! But he sure talked a good game, and got a lot of people on board with whipping up the rhetoric against any sort of population control, opposing public health initiatives regarding “social diseases” and such. The pushing of younger marriage ages to preserve the morals of the youth was sheer evil genius, as was the “protection of marriage” argument, where he argued that marriage between people of different races violated the marriage tradition, and was counter to God’s plan.
Did you know that it is said that it was his disgust and trauma over his neice’s suicide that prompted him to take up vegitarianism? He said eating meat was like “eating a corpse”.
Reportedly, he never touched meat again after that…and yet he could send millions of people to their deaths without a qualm (but only after he rested his concience by deciding that Judiasm was not a real religion, but instead a political philosophy).
What a strange psychology.
Teresa’s last blog post..OK…if they rEALLY want me to…
Teresa,
Hitler wasn’t a vegetarian. He pretended to be, but would hide his meat underneath his other food. Some of it was because his doctor ordered him to do so; some of it was to make him seem more moral. Obviously, the man was skilled at co-opting moral, valuable life choices to make his other actions seem more appealing.
Teresa, I’m not sure if you think you’re clever for making thinly veiled comparisons between Hitler and conservative pro-lifers. But it’s not clever. It’s ridiculous, immature, and unacceptable — like most of what you say here at Haemet.
Hitler was in favor of birth control for those he deemed inferior (Jews) much like Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood (regarding blacks and the poor). Hitler was the ultimate proponent of population control — ridding the world of those he found lacking and only allowing the superior race to live and reproduce. Hitler killed innocent people who had done nothing wrong except to be born different. Hitler experimented on the mentally and physically disabled. Hitler was a sadistic bastard who will burn in hell for eternity for his deeds.
Pro-family conservatives are in favor of traditional marriage because healthy families lead to a healthier society. Because two dedicated parents are better for a child than one struggling single mom/dad. We are against euthanasia because we believe the elderly and the disabled deserve society’s love, respect, and assistance rather than a push out the door. We question the prudence of praising unlimited birth control in the face of skyrocketing teen sex and pregnancy statistics. This isn’t based on race or religion, but a belief that all humanity is equal and deserving of respect. Quite the different philosophy from the Nazi socialist regime, wouldn’t you say?
Please, if you wish to remain commenting at Haemet, refrain from these offensive and untrue comparisons.
Right on, Tieki.
Teresa, Hitler encouraged, and sometimes forced, abortions for non-Aryan women.
Hitler’s idea wasn’t too different from the vile, faux-compassionate slogan of today’s abortion crowd: “Every child a wanted child.” How Hitler would’ve loved that clever manipulation of language and human sentiment! Of course, to him, a “wanted child” could only be an Aryan, and an unwanted child could only be a non-Aryan. As awful as that is, at least some innocent children escaped the death penalty.
But behold the brave vision of today’s liberals: to spread the totalitarian mindset to women of all races, nationalities, and creeds! Today, EVERY child can be an unwanted child, and every mother a killer. Now THAT’S equality, ladies! Talk about the will to power.
P.S. Regarding the slogan “every child a wanted child,” someone innocent of the depredations of modern liberalism might take it to mean that every human child should be valued and welcomed into the world. The way liberals use the phrase, it should read, “It’s you and me, kid, and guess who’s going to win this smackdown?” [shamelessly stolen from a Jay Nordlinger blog post years ago]. Or how ’bout a jaunty theme song? “You’re nobody ’til somebody loves you.”
There’s also the oft-forgotten logical conclusion to Planned Parenthood’s pithy slogan. “Every child a wanted child…” and every unwanted child a dead child.
Tieki Rae,
I understand that you don’t want to discuss these things. I apologize. I’ve had a couple of run-ins with neo-nazis both on my blog and recently in real life, and it’s on my mind. The “utilitarian” referance brought it up to me.
Hitler was indeed a sick, sadistic person who should burn in hell for all eternity. It’ll be good enough for me to never see his like again in power upon the earth.
A college professon once recommended that we read his writings and speeches because his tactics came from a deep and wide exploration of the entire history of political commentary, and were so frighteningly effective, he felt we should be armed against them with knowledge of them.
His writings and speeches really don’t describe the philosophy that you attribute to him. In fact, the philosophy that you ascribe to him would not have accomplished the things that he descibed in his writings and speeches…a world of endless millitary conflict and death where his country would look to him for constant salvation…
…But you’re right, I should have recognized that despite the utilitarian comment, further exploration would not be welcomed. If you wanted to know about it in more detail, you would have explored it more fully on your own.
Also, I realize that I annoy you, so I try to only comment on Roxeanne’s postings…and I just now realized (having just looked) that this is one of yours.
I assure you, that if I ever comment on one of your posts again, it will be a complete accident, and I ask that you simply remove it, as I have no wish to further annoy you.
Teresa’s last blog post..OK…if they rEALLY want me to…
Roxeanne,
Do you happen to have a referance on the hiding the meat thing? It would be interesting to see yet another example of his hypocracy. Do you happen to have dirt about him drinking alcohol or smoking as well?
Teresa’s last blog post..OK…if they rEALLY want me to…
Teresa, you completely ignored my point. I say ignored because I don’t actually think you are stupid enough to have completely missed it.
I have no problems discussing the evilness of Hitler and the differences between his propaganda and his real philosophy that he may or may not have hidden from the public. My problem is with your completely inappropriate comparison of Hitler to the pro-life, pro-family movement.
Teresa,
It seems clear to me that you are purposely trying to be condescending in your replies to Tieki. It is unbecoming for you to act innocent on this.
You know there are no similarities between Hitler and the pro-life positions.
The only ideology Hitler has anything in common with, are those of planned parenthood and the democratic party. Tieki Rae and Allison hit the nail on the head.
Sunflower Desert’s last blog post..B b b b utttt I didn’t know it was illegal