'Hand of Hope' Boy Has Passion for Life

Do you remember the famous photograph of the baby reaching out of the womb and grasping the doctor's finger? That baby is now 9-year-old Samuel Armas.

The photo has been spread around the world and even cited during congressional debates on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, but for Samuel it has personal significance. According to Fox News:

"When I see that picture, the first thing I think of is how special and lucky I am to have God use me that way," Samuel told FOXNews.com. "I feel very thankful that I was in that picture."
On Aug. 19, 1999, photographer Michael Clancy shot the "Fetal Hand Grasp" — his picture of a 21-week-old fetus grasping a doctor's finger during innovative surgery to correct spina bifida. Nearly four months later, on Dec. 2, Samuel Armas was "born famous."

The photo sparked controversy when the photographer claimed he saw the baby reach out and grab the doctor's finger, while the doctor claimed the baby was too anesthetized to do so.

"I don't care, honestly," Julie Armas [Samuel's mother] said. "What I felt the picture showed is that this is a child engaging in some form of interaction. I'm a labor and delivery nurse, so I understand that Samuel was anesthetized to some degree.
"So if he reached out, I don't know. If Dr. Bruner reached out, I don't know. The fact of the matter is it's a child with a hand, with a life, and that's meaningful enough."

And Samuel is glad to be the "poster child" for life:

Samuel, now 9 and living in Villa Rica, Ga., said the photo likely gave countless "babies their right to live" and forced many others to debate their beliefs on abortion, something he's proud of.
"It's very important to me," Samuel said of the photograph. "A lot of babies would've lost their lives if that didn't happen."

Kids like Samuel and Lia encourage me. Children seem to step up instantly to defend other children. They don't even question it. We can learn something from them.

Constitution Must Treat All Religions Equally

A Commentary by Pete Ondeng and Peter Waiyaki The public discourse on whether or not the Kadhi Courts should be included in the constitution has been wrongly interpreted by many to be a Christian vs Muslim affair. The often uninformed rhetoric by hard liners on both sides of the argument adds an unnecessary and potentially explosive element to the already charged political atmosphere. The issue here is not about religion, but about the constitution. The move to change the current constitution springs from an acknowledgement by most people that there are wrongs in the document that need to be made right. There are some basic rights, for instance, that the original constitution did not address, and which need to be enshrined in the new document. Similarly, there were some provisions that were included by those who negotiated the Lancaster House document that no longer hold water and need to be scrapped. The Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) retreat in Naivasha, which was expected by m...

WertBlog

Search This Blog