A mother is in her 9th month of pregnancy. Actually, she is about three days from giving birth. She goes to the doctor and the doctor tells her that her pregnancy has become dangerous to her life and that either she or the baby is going to die if she continues her pregnancy. They have to kill that baby pronto!!! He suggests getting an abortion. Under the laws of our land, this is a legal option. The labor-inducing chemical is administered, and the live-saving abortion is scheduled. After several hours (Is the baby steadily killing the mother in these hours?) the labor-inducing chemical begins to effectively work. The endangered woman shows up to her appointment, is prepped for the life-saving procedure, and the abortion begins. As her labor begins, the mother’s womb begins contractions and the baby moves toward the birth canal. As some labors take a long time, she may be hours in this procedure, all the while “at risk” (?) of this baby killing her in these last 3 days of her pregnancy. At some point after this, the doctor reaches up into the mother’s womb, and turns the baby around so that his feet, body and hands present first, as opposed to the head (Creating what is called a “breach birth” position – a situation life-giving mothers and doctors try to avoid because it is dangerous for the baby and for the mother.) Once all of the baby’s body is outside of his mother’s body, except for his head, then, according to the power invested in the doctor’s hands by the government, the baby can be killed via a fatal procedure to the brain (see illustration). Having done this, the dead baby’s body is fully removed, and the life of the mother is saved. Hurrah!! (Seems to me the same thing could be accomplished if the doctor would just let the baby be born head first – like normal – completely out of the womb, and then strangled, or something like that. Seems like much less work, and definitely less awkward, right? Oh, then it would be murder, I forgot.) This is the scenario Hillary Clinton conjured up the other night as far as a reason to uphold Roe v. Wade. She said that she has known “many” women who had just this situation to deal with and that’s why, she says, she wants to keep abortion legal.
That is not why she wants abortion to stay legal, and no one believes her, not even those who are going to vote for her. We all know that she wants to keep abortion legal because she is a selfish, utterly wicked woman who hates babies, and yes, hates women, and, ultimately, hates God. (“Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.” Acts 3:19) Regarding her scenario, there are so many holes in it that it would be exhausting to point them all out. I will just say the following and let the reader do the research on the “need” for abortion because of death-of the-mother situations. If a pregnancy is truly life threatening to a mother (as was the case for a friend of mine) in the last tri-mester (as was the case for my friend), labor can be induced (as was the case with this friend), the baby can be born (as was the son of my friend), and made to thrive (as this now 13 year-old does), NOT DIE. In my friend’s case, her labor was induced 3 months early. Her life was saved, as well as her son’s.
The scenario (of scheduling an abortion 3 days before the due date) on which Hillary was “basing” her advocacy for abortion, is beyond ridiculous. Partial birth abortion is about the sickest phrase I can think of. Even IF partial birth abortion was made legal to, so-called, protect the life of mothers who have “risky” pregnancies, we all know that this law is used prolifically to simply end lives that have become bothersome or to garner monetary gain.
Abortion is killing, whether in the first tri-mester, the second tri-mester, or the third tri-mester. Only those who have had their consciences seared believe otherwise, and their hands are stained with blood, like Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth.