Life of the Mother "Exception"
An "exception" means a child intentionally killed. A physician should never postpone his efforts to save the mother in order to take time out to kill the child. If a doctor can only save the mother and not the child also, that is a tragedy, but it is not an intentional killing. Unintentional, unavoidable, and accidental death is not the same as intentional killing.
A personhood amendment has no exceptions. But what if a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother? The doctor's goal should be to save mom and the baby if possible. The goal should never be to kill the mother to save the baby, nor to kill the child to save the mother.
Consider preeclampsia and ectopic pregnancy. In an ectopic pregnancy, often the baby tragically dies and sometimes, without proper medical care, so does the mother. But in many cases, both mom and baby have survived ectopic pregnancy (see below for more)! A mom on the verge of death from preeclampsia is saved by a doctor (not by an abortionist) who delivers the baby. The only way that doctor would thereby become an abortionist is if that doctor then performed an overt act to kill the baby. Removing the baby is not the same as killing the baby. Saving the mother often requires delivering the baby, but never killing the baby. That baby may not survive the premature delivery but the child's death must not be the intent of the medical intervention. For every good doctor follows the Hippocratic Oath to first, do no harm.
Society's attempt to justify killing unborn children leads to absurdities like the "exception" for the life of the mother in the partial-birth abortion ban. For the PBA "procedure" is not designed to save the mother but only to kill the baby. And partial-birth abortions, which are the intentionally breech, i.e., feet-first, delivery and then killing of these babies, were not performed by surgeons generally but only by abortionists.
Ultimately, abortionists use "exceptions" including incest and life only as an excuse to defend the slaughter of all unborn children for any reason. In reality, if the mother's life is threatened by her pregnancy, the doctor would deliver the baby through normal medical procedure but never stop midway to kill the baby. However, the very idea of delaying caring for and saving the mother long enough to take the time kill the baby is such an obvious cruelty and deception that it exposes the confusion in some, and the hardheartedness in others, who argue for such exceptions.
* ABC News: As of 2002, 40% of Ectopic Pregnancies are Not: In 2012 ABC News reported the findings from scientific research published in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology that, "roughly 40 percent of pregnancies diagnosed as ectopic are later revealed to be normal, intrauterine pregnancies". This startling report highlighted the tragic case of an Idaho mom who's child, as wonderful as she is, was terribly and unnecessarily deformed. Children who have been "misdiagnosed as ectopic and were actually in the uterus receive high doses of a teratogenic drug during early stage of development, and that causes malformations," said Dr. Yaron Finkelstein, an emergency physician at Sick Kids Hospital and associate professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Toronto. "This is a serious problem, and... overlooked." So after receiving a diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy, the first step is to confirm the diagnosis. If confirmed, consider the following.
Hundreds of Moms and Babies Survive Ectopic Pregnancy: Abortion has so hardened the heart of the medical community that no thought is given to the unborn child who is growing outside of the uterus. While government and medical industry websites claim that the baby cannot survive ectopic pregnancy, in truth, hundreds of such babies are reported as surviving abdominal, ovarian, and tubal ectopic pregnancies. For the documentation of these babies' wonderful survival, see the impeccably referenced meta study: Ectopic Personhood, by Bill Fortenberry. In situ and even by transplant to the uterus (as documented below), the ectopic child often can survive. In so many cases though, the child will die and so might the mother unless a physician intervenes. Those who desire to justify abortion claim that such a complication proves their point because proper medical treatment for an ectopic pregnancy requires the intentional killing of the embryo. As demonstrated extensively by a number of medical studies, by Fortenberry, and uniquely, below, this is not true. But consider their motivation and the form of their argument.
Those who try to undermine the biblical teaching of absolute morality will claim, for example, that Christians should not oppose suicide. They give examples such as a soldier throwing himself on a hand grenade or even Jesus Christ going willingly to the cross. However, suicide is the act of killing onseself intentionally. If that soldier could have saved himself and his buddies, he would have done so, for it was not his goal to kill himself but to save others, and thus, he is not guilty of committing suicide. Likewise as Jesus Christ prayed at Gethsemane the night before His crucifixion, "if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me." Thus it was not His desire to kill Himself, but to save others. Lawyers speaking Latin refer to mens rea, i.e., the guilty mind, which distinguishes such heroic acts from the sin of suicide including, for example, the three instances of suicide in the Bible of Saul (apparently), Abimelech, and Judas Iscariot.
The Latin word ectopia comes from the Greek ektopos meaning out-of-place. So a doctor who cannot save a mom's ectopic (out-of-place) child should not of course intentionally kill that child. But because of the modern disregard for the unborn child's life, many claim that the only valid medical treatment in many circumstances is to induce abortion by administering methotrexate, a drug lethal to the little one.
In addition to the procedures related in Ectopic Personhood, The Association of Pro-Life Physicians, in their article, What About an Ectopic Pregnancy? shows that methotrexate abortion is never required and that it has been known even to kill an existing uterine twin. Consider also this case documented in the Harvard Medical Library in Volume XXIV of the medical journal Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics. In the paper Transplantations of Ectopic Pregnancy from Fallopian Tube to Cavity of the Uterus, Dr. C. J. Wallace describes a successful transplant of such an out-of-place baby into his mom's womb:
In Duluth, Minnesota during an operation on a 27-year-old woman Dr. Wallace:
"found an ectopic gestation in the left tube," which was "enlarged to the size of a walnut... Knowing their anxiety for raising a child, I decided to try, at least, the only thing at hand -- to transplant the ectopic pregnancy. ... I carefully opened the tube and dissected the pregnancy out intact, being careful not to injure the sac in any way by keeping wide away and including part of the tube-wall. It came out very easily and was in size about equal to a large olive. It was at once placed within the cavity of the opened uterus... The tube was closed in like manner and left in place. The patient was watched carefully... for two weeks with no symptoms whatever. ... The pregnancy went on normally to full term and resulted in the natural birth of a fine boy, fully developed and without a scar, May 2, 1916."
Sadly at that time Margaret Sanger was 36 years old, the over-population myth was devaluing children, and America's medical community was being seduced by Darwinian eugenics. Thus, with the ensuing war against children, there has been a 100-year delay in the fulfillment of Dr. Wallace's prediction that, "I have not the least doubt that many such transplanted ectopic pregnancies will be reported in the near future." Dr. Wallace also predicted "failures in this as in other transplantation procedures, but there is not the [same level of] danger involved in this transplantation that there is in many others." And whether the baby is able to be successfully transplanted, or whether he or she dies, what is crucial before God, before man, and for the sake of the parents, is that every effort is made to love and protect both mom and this little one.
Long ago, abortion meant the termination of the pregnancy. Today, abortion means terminating the baby. Abortionists, like at Christ Hospital near Chicago, do not consider their job done when the baby is removed from the mother. For in what has been called the dreaded complication, when the baby survives the abortion procedure, most abortion clinic workers since the 1960s have not instinctively provided nourishment and medical care for these infants. Rather, they either make sure that the baby dies from a lack of care, or they actively kill the baby. So, abortion refers to the baby, not the pregnancy. For this reason in March 2013, Planned Parenthood testimony at a Florida legislative hearing argued in favor of the right to terminate the baby after he or she survives what can now be called a failed abortion. For even though the woman is no longer pregnant, and the baby clearly is not a part of her body, still, the job isn't done until the baby is dead. (See also, from the Feb. 2012 Journal of Medical Ethics, "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" The wickedness is so intense, that it exposes the superficiality and impotence of the failed abortion regulation strategy. The power and vision for victory will come only from the strength obtained by standing upon eternal truths.)
"Did Scientists Create Life in the Lab? American RTL is headquartered in Colorado, where we've been suggesting that Darwinists themselves ask the Denver Museum of Nature and Science to correct a misleading exhibit headline which refers to the 1952 Miller/Urey experiment which synthesized amino acids. The museum's exhibit is titled: Replicating Life in the Lab? It’s been sixty years. Don’t they know yet if they made life or not? Their question mark is insufficient to counterbalance this false report, since amino acids are building blocks of biological life, but they are not life. They're acids. The image on the right documents the corrupt thinking of many "pro-choicers" who consent to the killing of the innocent.
We Don't Know When Life Begins" Ten thousand times over the Roe v. Wade opinion has been quoted approvingly by those who advocate the killing of unborn children. That opinion, authored by Republican justice Harry Blackmun, claimed in Section IX, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." Of course the Republican majority who voted to pass Roe v. Wade had a responsibility to answer that question. For what they ended up doing was decriminalizing the intentional killing of innocent children for which crime they will stand before God for gross deriliction of duty for not protecting these kids as they were required to do. While there are conflicted evolutionists, virtually by definition, Darwinian evolution rejects the sanctity of human life. Thus a high percentage of pro-aborts are evolutionists.
Abortion is Always Wrong: Abortion is always wrong because it's a baby, and it is always wrong to intentionally kill a baby. So without exception, abortion is wrong and should be abolished.
Please see also AmericanRTL.org/exceptions regarding other so-called "exceptions," and check out our Focus on the Strategy II video online or via DVD. And remember, we are the makers of the world's largest protest sign!
For more information, email, write, or call us:
American Right To Life
1535 Grant Street #105
Denver, CO 80203
Please donate now to ARTL! Please consider making a one-time or automatic monthly donation to American Right To Life - General Fund to help the personhood movement fight to end child-killing! ARTL can use your non-tax-deductible gift to also give a political voice to the unborn, no exceptions, toward outlawing all abortion.