When a mother doesn't want what she conceived, and who she has conceived is able to?

Question

suck his/her thumb, feel pain, yawn, breathe if allowed to, why would that mother choose to give birth to the whole child except for his/her head and request that her "doctor" prevent the head from being delivered so that the child cannot take a breath while that child's feet are kicking and toes are wiggling and that child's little hands are free from the mother and waiting to feel the mother's touch, to see the world and breathe that first breath, the shoulders are free and yet the head is prevented from being delivered. Instead, after the largest part of the child has already been delivered - the shoulders - the "doctor" prevents the head from coming out of the mother, shoves his scissors into the child's head with no pain killers, then puts a tube in the child's head and proceeds to suck the brain from the child.

How is this torture to a child saving a mother's life?

http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/abortion.html

http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/statistics.asp
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17246

Answer 1

Caesarian sections are used to "save" a mother's life.
What you are describing is a partial birth abortion done in the later terms of pregnancy, frequency after the fetus has reached the age of viability. It has nothing to do with life-saving, but everything to do with life-taking.
Abortion past the age of viability is murder.

Answer 2

I think the only way to bring this sort of thing to an end, or at least to fewer in number, is for parents to teach their kids right and wrong and about the consequences of their actions.
I doubt it will ever be stopped completely and I don't think I'm in a position to say it should be.
Everyone has to live with their decisions in life and I'm sure that for those who've been involved in something like this, there will probably be some very difficult days in their lives.

Answer 3

In all honesty, it is actually merciful to the child. If she is willing to go through all of that to keep the child from living, then she is probably saving the child from a horrid life. She is very likely saving the child from misery, hunger, abuse, rape, etc. While no one wants to think that child abuse happens, it certainly DOES happen, and far more often than anyone is willing to admit. It isn't done to save the mother's life. It is done to save the child from a horrible existence. An existence the child had no choice but to be forced into if kept alive.

Answer 4

Honey, you are reading the wrong material...

Partial birth abortions are not done at the request of the mother. It is an extreme procedure, rarely used, that is sometimes necessary to save the life of the mother.

You need to read something other than scripture-related information. There is a big difference between "knowledge" and "indoctrination".....

Answer 5

You're so right. This "torture" is NOT done to save a mother's life. If a mother is able to carry a baby (I hate the word "fetus"...it's a BABY when it's that far along) to full-term and partially deliver this child only to have it destroyed......Then her only motive and the only motive of the "doctor" is to murder this child.

All those who were for slavery were free; all those who are for abortion were born. That's how oppression works.

Answer 6

If a mothers life is in true danger and the baby cannot be saved it should be up to the Dr's and the mother to decide what is the best way to handle the situation...it should not be left up to ANYONE else.

Maybe if you know the FACTS about this procedure you would change your mind....doubtful but maybe.

. Partial-birth abortions (see, you can have your silly, unscientific name, and I’ll still win) account for less than 0.2 percent of all abortions in the United States. Of those, most are performed at 20-24 weeks of gestation, or late into the second trimester but within the Supreme Court’s time frame. A study conducted in 1996 could only locate two cases of “partial birth abortion” performed after 24 weeks in that year in the United States.

Admittedly, abortion rates dropped greatly through the 1990s, but the procedure was developed in 1992 and no earlier statistics were available. Although right wingers have succeeded in labeling this a “late term procedure,” only two were performed after the point of viability, at 26 and 33 weeks gestation.

So rare is this procedure in stages of gestation not already protected by the constitution that one might even call it a drastic decision to make. (Did I mention it can take two to three days?) I would venture to say that, contrary to right wing radio’s demented vision of murderous doctors and depraved, immoral mothers, the medical community seems to be using the procedure responsibly without any crowd-pleasing congressional supervision.

Of those performed, the reasons most commonly given (although again I emphasize that statistics are very difficult to come by) were:

*The fetus had died late in development, and delivering it through natural means would have harmed the mother both physically and psychologically. (This type of procedure is not prohibited under the ban, but accounts for many, and possibly a majority, of the procedures included in statistics.)

*The fetus suffered from anencephaly, meaning that while it would carry to term, it would not have developed most of its brain. If not still born, such a child will usually die less than five days after birth. This defect is not usually discovered until late into the second trimester, when a partial birth or dilation and evacuation are the only options. The ban then leaves mothers with a choice between dilation and evacuation, or giving birth to their brainless child, then watching it die. Your compassionate conservative President’s proudest accomplishment, ladies and gentlemen.

*The fetus developed a severe case of hydrocephalus, a swelling of the skull (due to a flooding of cerebrospinal fluid around the brain) which in extreme cases makes it impossible to pass through the birth canal. Many (about one in 500 American children) suffer from milder cases of the disease, but the ban does not make exceptions for cases wherein the mother would suffer permanent debilitating injury (swelling can go up to 250 percent normal size), only to give birth to a hopelessly brain-damaged, if not stillborn, infant. I think it would be interesting to see how Congressmen would feel about their wives or daughters being permanently handicapped in order to go through the trauma of giving birth to a deformed, dying child.

There are many other possible reasons for a late term abortion, of course, and these were just some of the more common reasons. The point was this: Do you really think with these cruel realities out there that the two late term partial birth abortions I was able to identify were… what? Performed because the mother forgot to enter the first abortion appointment in her Palm Pilot? Isn’t it more likely that these were the only responsible medical alternative?

You can read the entire article here:
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/avery/partial_birth_abortion_feel_good_bad_831.htm

Answer 7

Don't even know what to say to that. It's a horrible "procedure" (read:murder). I can't believe some people think this is ok. It's worse than disgusting. Yet these same people think water boarding incarcerated terrorists is wrong. How backwards is that?
God Bless You!

Answer 8

Here's something for you to think about. Answer this: which would you rather have, a partial birth abortion in a hospital, or a sharpened coat hanger to puncture your uterus in some doctor's office? Does the Bible distinguish between a partial birth abortion and an American soldier who kills an Iraqi (in a war that we started)?

Answer 9

Saving a mother's life? What are you talking about. Partial birth abortion? I think it's horrible no matter how you look at it.

Answer 10

Thank you for reminding us of the atrocities committed every day in "health care". Pray for the babies, the mommies, and the "doctors" who are involved in this business!