Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Upheld

Thanks to Luther at the Movies for this link to a New York Times article .

I couldn't help but cry when I was reading this article. I was amazed at how straightforwardly the article described the procedure of delivering the body of the baby into the birth canal (at this stage, the baby would be breech, or head up), and then having the baby's head crushed like a bug. Actually, I believe they insert a needle into the base of the neck and suck out the baby's brains so that the skull can collapse more easily.

This is touted as a ban on one of the safest procedures. I still do not understand, after having three children, how if a mother can deliver the baby's shoulders, why she cannot deliver the head. The shoulders have already passed through the cervix and the head remains to pass through (maybe because the arms might be coming through with the head?).

I remember being on the table when each of my living children were born full term by c-section, thinking "if an hour ago, I had presented a case that I was not ready to be a mother, we could be laying here preparing to kill my baby right now"

While some fear that this could be leading to an end to all abortions after twelve weeks into the pregnancy, the article states that there are other methods that can be used. The most common is a D&E, or Dilation and Evacuation. Here's the Wikipedia definition:

The first step in a D&E is to dilate the cervix. This is often begun about a day before the surgical procedure. Enlarging the opening of the cervix enables surgical instruments such as a curette or forceps to be inserted into the uterus. The second
step is to remove the fetus. Either a local anesthetic or general anesthesia is given to the woman. Forceps are inserted into the uterus through the vagina and used to separate the fetus into
pieces, which are removed one at a time. Lastly, vacuum
is used to ensure no fetal tissue remains in the uterus (such tissue can cause serious infections in the woman). The pieces are also examined to check that the entire fetus was removed.

"Used to separate the fetus into pieces." Used to CUT the fetus into pieces, decapitate, rip it up, and then systematically remove the limbs, the head, the torso, etc. from the uterus, in reality. Wikipedia also states that a "partial birth abortion" is medically referred to as an "intact dilation and extraction."

In both of these cases, actually in all abortion procedures, excluding RU-486 and the "morning after" pill, the mother is dilated for the procedure. Probably the biggest risk to her health has to do with infections from vacuums and knives being put in her uterus, as well as wounds and bleeding resulting. In most cases, if dilation occurs, the pregnancy terminates, because the baby is not held in the uterus. Think of the risks that women with incompetent cervices face.

A little over eight years ago, I was 18 weeks pregnant when I found out that my baby had died in the womb. Ultrasounds showed no movements, no heartbeat could be found, and judging from his size, it had happened and the amount of amniotic fluid that remained, my doctor estimated that it had happened a couple of weeks before. She said standard procedure in this matter was to refer me to an abortion clinic, because those were the doctors who had experience performing the D & E procedure. We refused. I wasn't going to put myself or something that had been so precious into the hands of these murderers. So I was induced (another common method of abortion after twelve weeks). It wasn't over in an hour like a D & E would've been, but my baby was born whole, and once I was dilated, he really just slipped out. Noah had these amazingly perfectly defined hands and feet . I was amazed at their beauty. I could see the nail beds. His body, especially his face and his skin, had already lost some of their definition and characteristics, but there was no doubt that I was holding a perfectly made little boy in my hand (which was about his size). I am never really quite sure if fetal pictures make the point or are more about shock value, so I didn't post his picture here, but I did consider it. I remember showing it to my then almost two year old. Chris looked at it and said "baby." It was clear to him.

I don't buy the argument about safety. I really don't. I wasn't able to deliver two children at term because of a narrow pelvic arch, but a 16 week baby (the ones that they say need to be ripped apart) passed through easily. What is being argued by abortionists is safety. but if we are arguing safety (and a part of me is wondering why I'm discussing the safest way to brutally murder someone), it would be much safer to induce labor, or to simply induce dilation, which they already do. But its not takes time. It also might drive it home that a baby is being born.

But Satan is not about that. When he reaches out to corrupt and destroy, he leaves his mark. It is not enough to bring them out of the womb and simply let them suffocate, we need to tear them to bits while they still feel it. We need to burn their flesh with chemicals so that they die writhing in pain. We need to squash their heads like cockroaches, and we need to proclaim to all that this is a virtuous and noble procedure that is needed to protect women everywhere.

God bless the Supreme Court. Please continue to pray that this evil practice where we prey on our very own children stops. Please God, make it stop.

technorati tags:


Jennifer said...

reading your post brought tears to me eyes :( it makes me so sad. but I was encouraged to hear that you deliverd your precious baby and didn't have it ripped apart. I couldn't imagine hurting my baby even if it was already gone :(

Favorite Apron said...

sick sick sick. i don't even know what to say.

Kirken said...

Here in Canada there was a place that made their nurses assist even if they were against abortion. They fought and won the right to say no to assisting.

Our oldest son was looking at a magazine of DH's and there was an article about abortion and the picture was showing Pro-Life supporters with tape over their mouths with LIFE written across it. He asked me what they were doing so I explained to him what they were doing. He asked what an abortion was (he was 5 at the time) so I told him that they take a baby from it's mommy's tummy and it dies. He was absolutely mortified by the idea and said to me "But that is killing the baby!"

My thought was, "If a 5 year old can figure that out why can't the adults?"

Larjmarj said...

It's a shame that children in this country aren't more informed about the natural functions of their bodies. That would certainly cut down on the need for such procedures.

Rebellious Pastor's Wife said...

Larjmarj (love the pic!),

I'm curious what you think children need to know that they aren't getting nowadays that would make knowledge be the issue regarding sexual activity and abortion?

I know for a fact that most children know where babies come from, at even younger ages than I did. It's covered in many schools from kindergarten on. I also know that they get a large battery of information regarding birth control and STD protection.

Unwanted pregnancies don't happen because our kids don't know enough. They happen because our kids aren't encouraged and helped to restrain themselves (and I'm not talking about simple programs like "True Love Waits." I think their effectiveness is limited) They know what they are doing, they even know pregnancy is a possibility (I know I did in my teen years). I also know the risk isn't real to them. That is a developmental reality. Teens are hard-wired to not be able to grasp the concept that harm can come to them.

Now if we are talking about learning to read cycles and knowing when they are fertile, I think that is just more effort than most are willing to expend (and I know...I've been doing it for the last eight years). And if they don't have the wherewithall to say "lets use a condom" or to get on the pill (another abortifacient), then I don't think many will have the where-with-all to say "I can't right now, I'm fertile." Especially when those hormones are giving them a big push toward wanting to have sex (another reality in my life).

And who says we are just talking about teens? I've been a social worker, and the majority of my clients were in their 30's and through the course of their 20's and early 30's they were having 4-5 children each with different fathers.
There are so many areas where this breaks down sociologically that I can't even begin to start in a comment post. This is already much too long!

Larjmarj said...

Maybe there are programs where you are at where kids get accurate information about, reproduction, sex and sexuality but here in Michigan I went to college with women (in their 20's) who were baffled in biology class because they couldn't figure out when conception occurred. Even better....these women HAD children! I thought that it was incredible. Also there are a lot of "technical virgins out there who are having everything but vaginal intercourse, thus the rise in STD's that were previously on the down slide. I agree that teens have a cognitive disconnect between cause and effect. My feeling is that they are getting extreme messages between just say no and a culture that doesn't promote personal responsibility. (in any area) Understanding the biological side is only part of the picture, they also need to understand the changes that occur with puberty not only physically but hormonally and emotionally and how best to deal with the onslaught of these natural biological urges. I'm not saying that there won't be any unplanned pregnancies but it would be nice to demystify sex and sexuality in general. I think if it's seen as a natural and normal part of human nature instead of something to be either vilified or glorified.

Rebellious Pastor's Wife said...

some very good points. Lauren Winner has an EXCELLENT book called "Real Sex" that addresses that. I heard her speak at The Cranach Institute's "In the Image of God" seminar at Concordia Theological Seminary last year.

Her main point was that we have normalized sex outside of marriage. We've made that the normal standard (exciting, risky, impulsive, impetuous), rather than marital sex (loving, committed, dedicated to each other). We've defined marital sex as boring, and exciting sex as that outside of marriage. Look at all the books, magazine articles, and 'toys' a whole industry devoted to making marital sex more exciting...when in truth, it is one of the most beautiful gifts God gave us.

I highly recommend getting the book, and/or going to the Cranach Institute's website and ordering the CD. It was very good.