Posted on 06/06/2009 9:43:41 AM PDT by Lorianne
Under Kansas law, an abortion can be performed after a fetus is viable only if the doctor performing the procedure and an independent physician agree that the woman's life is at risk or that continuing the pregnancy would cause "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." When Susan Fitzgerald went in for a routine ultrasound near the end of her pregnancy, she was expecting good news. Instead, she was stunned to learn that the fetus had a rare condition that left his bones so brittle he would live less than a day. "It was unbelievable," Fitzgerald said. "You think by the third trimester you're home free. It was devastating." Desperate to end the pregnancy, she flew from her home in New England to Wichita, where George Tiller was one of the few doctors in the country willing to perform an abortion so late in a pregnancy. "It was very difficult, but I knew it was the most humane thing I could do for my baby," Fitzgerald said. "It was absolutely the right thing to do. I'm just so grateful that Dr. Tiller was there for me." _______________________ "The latest patient was a case where the fetus had no brain at all, would never take a breath on its own. That was probably just a few weeks before delivery," said LeRoy Carhart, a Bellevue, Neb., doctor who worked with Tiller, in an interview this week. "Her doctor knew the problem all along but just never told her."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Why does the media do that? Do they think their readers will not notice?
Does anyone know exactly what the Kansas law is who and can tell me ... Is it as simply written as stated in the article? What exactly ARE the criteria?
I believe the cases cited are devastatingly sad, but they do not seem to meet the KS law to me. The babies' situations as cited are "late 3rd term" and will die anyway. If that's true, why kill them? Why not just deliver them either through induced labor or C-section and then let the babies live out their natural life, even if it's only a few hours, a few days or a week?
I don't believe there is a law that hospitals are required to take extraordinary measures to keep a baby alive (tubes, pumps, ventilation, etc) ... just palliative care. Anyone know?
This is a very sad story - that a mother would have the idea in her head that it was more humane to have her baby aborted late in pregnancy than to have the baby born - does she think the baby has no nerves or feeling while he is in the womb and that perhaps it may hurt to be aborted? It was not more humane for the baby - she wanted the easy way out so she would not to have to deal with the emotions of witnessing her terminally ill child - very, very, very sad - heartbreaking.
“why kill them”
Because the left has taught it’s followers that killing babies is a moral and courageous thing to do.
Give it time, and some apostate pro-baby-killing ‘church’ out in Kansas will either name itself after Tiller, or put up a statue of the dead SOB.
My wife has a chromosomal translocation that gave one of our children an extra D-group chromosome. It didn't survive labor, and couldn't have survived more than a short time on its own. Our attitude about future births was that she would proceed with the pregnancy, give birth, and we would accept whatever consequences ensued. Neither of us believes we are qualified to make the decision as to who shall live and who shall die.
Yes, that’s incredible.
And I never understand that you’re going to die very soon, let’s kill you now theory either. It’s so clearly to make things better or easier for the survivors, and yet it is always portrayed as some kind of compassion.
The best take on this is the Monty Python Black Death sketch when the son is trying to put his father on the cart filled with dead bodies and the old man protests “I’m not dead yet!”
I read once that the eskimo women would sometimes leave the igloo and sit in a windstorm until dead. If they thought there wasnt’ enough food for everyone to survive until spring, they would do this in hopes that their children would then be able to eat until spring and survive.
that’s deciding who should live and who should die.
And it seems natural that a woman would die for her child, but not so natural that a woman would kill her child for her own sake.
I am heartily sorry for your loss, and humbled by your faith.
I don’t understand this; I seriously do not understand -— if the baby will/might die, they can’t wait just a little longer so that they don’t murder him/her????
I’m going to vomit.
well, if that same eskimo woman thought her own death wasn’t enough to stretch the food supply out long enough for the rest, she might also take a small child with her, or a sick one...I’m guessing. I never read this I’m only hypothesizing that it seems logical.
So now in this example, wouldn’t the mother be guilty of deciding who should live and who should die? I don’t have kids btw. This is purely a hypothetical for me.
I don't think "deciding who should live and who should die" applies to oneself. It's interesting to observe, in the case you mentioned, that the person doing the sacrificing is trying to let fate intervene, rather than committing an overt act of suicide.
Thank you, and you may be happy to know that the remainder of our children were very healthy. We didn't have the opportunity to be tested, but I feel confident we could have done the right thing if that had been the case.
Proverbs 12:10.......the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel
And I never understand that you’re going to die very soon, let’s kill you now theory either. It’s so clearly to make things better or easier for the survivors, and yet it is always portrayed as some kind of compassion.
Correct and knowing a couple who knew they had a young girl who lived I believe three weeks after birth it’s the absolute wrong thing to do...they now have cherished memories of caring for her and loving her as long as they could. This lady instead has the memory of knowing her babies brain and skull was crushed to prevent her from “suffering”. It’s disgusting when one REALLY thinks about it.
You have our deepest sympathies on the loss of your child.
You are brave and wonderful people. may you be blessed with a healthy, wonderful baby in the future!
the irony of these late term abortions is that it DOES NOT help the parents of the lost child. Psychological studies show over and over that there is more ability to grieve when the parents can hold the baby, even if it is for a very short time.
100% true.
I mean think about it. If they didn’t know their child was ill before birth and they found out after say a week those same parents would do ANYTHING to try to keep their baby alive.
Yet go one week before birth they find out and they kill their child intentionally? How can that not leave deep wound and psychological scarring and pangs of regret and guilt.
It really isn’t that difficult to understand but the pro abortionist make it sound like the parents who do this are heroic and “humane” which is 180 degrees opposite of what it really is. In it’s eccense it’s first degree murder but no one wants to say that...
Thanks for your kind words. We’re done with our childbearing and rearing, but our next two children were as healthy and happy as we could have wished for!
Oh really? By having the baby forcibly removed from the uterus, almost born, then having its brains sucked out of its head? I doubt this woman would to this to her DOG, but she thinks it's 'humane' for her baby?
The more 'humane' thing to do would have been to let the baby be born naturally, then love it until it died, on its own. Sure, the family would have been sad, but they'd have been able to hold that baby, and love it for the time it had on this earth, and it would have known love and care at the end of its life rather than violence and pain.
It's sometimes just breathtaking how people justify the choices they make.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.