NO, Anna, I'm talking about THE LITERAL REMOVAL OF THE BABY. I'm not using it as a euphemism. I mean EXACTLY what I say.
REMOVING the baby IS NOT MURDER unless you INTENTIONALLY STOP TO KILL THE BABY.
The law allows for the murder of the baby.
This "exception" means a baby is killed, not just dies. That makes it murder.
There is nothing "extreme" about it. The baby, from the moment of conception, is a living human being. That's a fact.
Quit exaggerating.
Saying it doesn't make it so!
What if we use the term "delivery" then. Does that make any difference to you?
Delivering the baby prematurely is not murder. It's just delivering the baby! The baby may not survive the premature delivery, which is done to save the mother, BUT IT'S NOT INTENTIONALLY MURDERING THE BABY!
One is the intentional act of killing the baby, the other is simply delivering the baby. Woe to you who calls good evil and evil good!
Once again, because you can't seem to get it through your thick skull:
An "exception" means a child intentionally killed. A physician should never postpone his efforts to save the mother in order to take time out to kill the child. If a doctor can only save the mother and not the child also, that is a tragedy, but it is not an intentional killing. Unintentional, unavoidable, and accidental death is not the same as intentional killing.
The effort to abolish abortion, like a personhood amendment, provides for no exceptions. But what if a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother? The doctor's goal should be to save mom and the baby if possible. The goal should never be to kill the mother to save the baby, nor to kill the child to save the mother.
It's far more likely that the doctor actually did what he said he did, and that society as a whole was being lured into Darwinian eugenics.
Sadly at that time Margaret Sanger was 36 years old, the over-population myth was devaluing children, and America's medical community was being seduced by Darwinian eugenics. Thus, with the ensuing war against children, there has been a 100-year delay in the fulfillment of Dr. Wallace's prediction that, "I have not the least doubt that many such transplanted ectopic pregnancies will be reported in the near future." Dr. Wallace also predicted "failures in this as in other transplantation procedures, but there is not the [same level of] danger involved in this transplantation that there is in many others." And whether the baby is able to be successfully transplanted, or whether he or she dies, what is crucial before God, before man, and for the sake of the parents, is that every effort is made to love and protect both mom and this little one.
Long ago, abortion meant the termination of the pregnancy. Today, abortion means terminating the baby. Abortionists, like at Christ Hospital near Chicago, do not consider their job done when the baby is removed from the mother. For in what has been called the dreaded complication, when the baby survives the abortion procedure, most abortion clinic workers since the 1960s have not instinctively provided nourishment and medical care for these infants. Rather, they either make sure that the baby dies from a lack of care, or they actively kill the baby. So, abortion refers to the baby, not the pregnancy. For this reason in March 2013, Planned Parenthood testimony at a Florida legislative hearing argued in favor of the right to terminate the baby after he or she survives what can now be called a failed abortion. For even though the woman is no longer pregnant, and the baby clearly is not a part of her body, still, the job isn't done until the baby is dead. (See also, from the Feb. 2012 Journal of Medical Ethics, "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" The wickedness is so intense, that it exposes the superficiality and impotence of the failed abortion regulation strategy. The power and vision for victory will come only from the strength obtained by standing upon eternal truths.) |