Baby "spared" life

The Weekend Australian magazine 19-20 October 2013, published an article titled “In the end, to be a mother meant to spare my unborn child suffering”.  A decision was taken to end the life of a 21 week old unborn baby boy in Australia.  See also, video footage of heart surgery of 25 week unborn in USA recently. 
The decision to "terminate" was taken because the baby had hypoplastic left heart syndrome, which means the baby’s heart was not functioning fully.
 
The mother understood that “it is not until the umbilical lifeline of the mother is cut, after birth, that this even matters”.  The baby boy was clearly not a clump of cells or a derogatory reference to a “foetus”.  Indeed the mother referred to her unborn boy as her “baby” or unborn child 19 times in the article.
 
Earlier this month, October 2013 in the USA, surgery was performed on an unborn baby of similar gestation, in utero for the same condition.  One of the physicians told the Los Angeles Times: (8 October 2013) “It’s only been a week or two, but even initially after the procedure, we could see increased blood flow across the valve, and the heart was squeezing a bit better than before.”  And “Prenatal intervention may also allow the foetus to recover in the supportive in utero environment, during a developmental period when there is enhanced wound healing and the capacity for myocyte proliferation.”  
 
View live YouTube coverage of the life saving operation performed on the baby in America in October 2013.
 
Interestingly, also in the Los Angeles Times article the American Heart Association points out “Prenatal intervention may also allow the foetus to recover in the supportive in utero environment, during a developmental period when there is enhanced wound healing and the capacity for myocyte proliferation.” 
 
The driving force in this Australian case appeared to be the opinion of doctors whose judgement related to whether the mother had any other children or not! How is this question then extrapolated to killing the unborn?
 
It is abhorrent that a baby boy is killed in Australia, with the main reason that if alive, he would be subject to extensive surgery to save his life, which is available overseas, and hospitals in Melbourne pride themselves on.  The Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne beamed worldwide coverage of twins who were marvellously separated by their skilful surgeons in a marathon 27 hour operation!
 
Further, using my taxes and yours to kill the baby boy, then disguise the killing by giving the parents a baby bonus is beyond belief.
 
The article states that information given in to the parents of the baby boy “If your baby takes a breath before dying, you cannot keep the body - it must be cremated or taken to a funeral home; you are also entitled to the baby bonus, which, a nurse brightly suggests, should help with burial costs”. 
 
Did I read this correctly – the baby is born alive, then allowed to die. If her baby boy took a breath, it is a live, born child.  He should receive full medical care like any other baby born. This is pure infanticide.  
 
The Royal Women’s Hospital in Melbourne in their “Reproductive Loss Pathway” brochure not only includes terminations as an example of "loss", in their programme, but informs women about possible Centrelink payments, and further disguises termination by encouraging women to take footprint impressions and wrap the terminated baby in a quilt!
 
The King Edward Hospital in WA in their Clinic Guidelines (2010) for mid trimester terminations (12-24 weeks) states that the couple may “dress the foetus” for mid trimester (12-24 weeks) terminations.  Yet further on it says the “foetus” is then dropped into a white labelled container and stored in the fridge.
 
It is NOT a “loss” to choose to kill a baby boy and then dress up the killing. 
In the end, to be a mother meant to spare an unborn boy from living.

Click here for e-newsletter

© 2021 Right to Life Australia. All Rights Reserved.