GROUND ZER0, 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.

      The pregnancy brings up the question:  Who's in charge of the fetuses' rights, the Beast of Terror or the Parents of Vigilance?
      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 the decision.

      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 own desires.
      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?

       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.  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 "person."
        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 harvest.

         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 life?
         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?   

         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 Children's Children.

       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.

        And what 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 Generations.
       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 welfare?"
       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 question.
        It is protected.

        Only 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 Individual."
        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?