I read this article in The Telegraph the other day about a 22 week old fetus, an unborn baby, who survived an abortion attempt and lived for two days; unattended to, abandoned and left to die. Alone.
After I stopped weeping and saying a prayer for that innocent life lost, a couple of other things struck me in the article.
A spokesman for the ProLife Alliance said: "There cannot be anybody in the world who is not horrified by a story like this nor anybody in the UK who would not support a massive reduction in the upper limit for abortion."
Wrong. It happens here, too. And Pro-abortionists, including President Obama, aren't horrified. In fact, they, and he, support late term abortion, as well as letting babies who have survived abortion attempts be left to die.
However, the infant survived the procedure, carried out on Saturday in the Rossano Calabro hospital, and was left by doctors to die. He was discovered alive the following day – some 20 hours after the operation – by Father Antonio Martello, the hospital chaplain, who had gone to pray beside his body.
He found that the baby, wrapped in a sheet with his umbilical cord still attached, was moving and breathing.
Pro-abortion advocates disingenuously argue about viability. Firstly, alleged viability occurs earlier and earlier with advancements in medicine. Secondly, what about life itself? This baby was Life. With a heart and a soul, that included the spirit and the will to live, so strong even at the hands of those who tried to purposefully snuff that life out.
Italian police are investigating the case for "homicide" because infanticide is illegal in Italy. The law means that doctors have had an obligation to try to preserve the life of the child once he had survived the abortion.
But it is still totally okay if the baby does die via abortion? A baby, capable of living for nearly two days all on it's own, fighting with the spirit of life itself. Breathing and struggling to survive. The article goes onto mention that Italy does allow such later term abortions be performed, in cases of disability, as was the case with this baby. Do you know what his disability was?
To pro-abortionists, that's a reason to kill the baby. In fact, they believe that life is expendable for any reason if it doesn't fit into your personal plans. This includes life that is outside of the woman's body and has survived an abortion attempt. Obama himself voted against Born Alive acts in Illinois and opposed legislation that would define those babies as persons. The legislation was brought about because, as testimony evidenced, babies being tossed aside and left to die happens in abortion clinics here. In some clinics, it happens in 20 percent of the abortions performed. Such heinous actions are not only condoned, but are vehemently supported by the President of the United States. Again, he voted against legislation protecting those lives.
I suppose he doesn't want his daughters punished by babies that refuse to die. Why did he oppose the legislation? Because, to him, protecting abortion and abortion doctors was more important than protecting the truly most vulnerable and keeping living newborns alive.
As a Senator in Illinois, debating a Born Alive bill, he said this:
As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead..
Not coming out limp and dead. Pesky babies not cooperating and insisting on having the human will to live and the strong spirit to survive.
The original article referenced a boy in the UK who survived not one, but three abortion attempts. He is now 5 years old. Perhaps President Obama and his fellow pro-abortion travelers should meet him.
And ask him why he didn't just "come out limp and dead."