In the past, people have slammed me for standing up for my pro-life views. It should be known that I do understand why some mothers may choose to have an abortion if they know that their child cannot survive outside the womb, or being pregnant places their lives in danger. That does not mean that I personally agree with it for the sake of just not wanting a baby, but that I do not judge others. That is between them and God.
Now, the issue of third trimester abortions has been hot in politics, religion and everywhere for generations. When these abortions occur, they are most often done at a medical facility that is capable of performing the procedure in a legally accepted way. Unfortunately, the hard economic times have led many women to seek abortions from doctors who should not legally be performing them.
That brings us to the case of Kermit Gosnell, the man who today "avoided the possibility of being condemned to death" after he was CONVICTED of FIRST DEGREE MURDER of THREE BABIES. The man has been convicted of killing babies after they had been born alive, VIABLE outside the womb, and then killed by severing of their spinal cord. At what point does that sound like a good idea? Even Pro-Choice organizations are against this type of behavior, and agree that it makes legal abortions look bad. However, it does show that there is a need for legal precedent and procedure for abortions to avoid this type of psychosis and mistreatment of women and babies.
I understand the legal reasons for not sentencing this man to the death penalty, I mean, tax payers will be paying for this man to have three meals a day, medical care and a roof over his head for the rest of his life in prison anyway. He's old...and let's face it, prison will not be kind to this man.
Here's my thought, and the honest TRUTH. I have read that the women who seek the help of doctors like Gosnell do so because they cannot handle another child. One example given was a mother with three kids already, whose husband just lost his job. "Another baby would sink us". Okay, how about using this magical thing called BIRTH CONTROL? It's free at most health departments, and the GOVERNMENT (Medicaid) will even pay for birth control methods, a tubal ligation surgery or IUD following birth. It's really easier to just kill the baby when you decide that you don't want it than it is to be a responsible adult to begin with?
And secondly, people who have babies and babies and babies, and then cannot afford to pay for their care, but they continue to have babies irresponsibly (and I am only referring to those irresponsible parents, not those who just fall on hard times), should not be allowed to punish the baby for their irresponsibility. The baby did not ask to be conceived, it just was.
I am a mother, I have had hard times... I easily could have gotten to the point where Lily could have died in the womb and they had to "abort" her in order to save my life. But that thought never crossed my mind. I was willing to go through HELL in order to try to get her here, and I work my backside off every single day to make sure that she has what she needs. I don't depend on anyone else to do that. I don't take advantage of the government's resources. I cannot imagine what kind of desperation it must take to make the choice for a late-term abortion.
The federal government considers life "viable" at 24 weeks gestation. Think about this, Lily was only developed to 27 weeks gestation "give or take" when she was born. That's not a lot of room for margin. When she was in NICU, there were babies there that were BORN before 24 weeks that survived thanks to doctors and technology (and a lot of prayer). But it's POSSIBLE. How then, are our nation's NICU's full of born fetuses and yet we continue to say that they are not "viable" outside the womb to be considered a person?
I would challenge anyone who gets to decide abortion laws to go walk through a NICU unit and see the babies that are there. They are viable, alive, and living, breathing human beings. I have Lily to prove that!!