Pro-abortion advocates often demand access to abortion in order to “save the life of the mother.” Indeed, at times pro-life advocates will hold to the same exception. The question is, is this a legitimate exception or just a ploy to dupe the public into supporting abortion? A recent article at LifeNews.com tackles this question by stating:
“A third trimester abortion is performed by injecting poison (usually dioxin) into the baby, then inducing labor. A woman essentially ‘gives birth’ to a dead baby. In both a third trimester abortion and a traditional live birth, the woman has to go through labor. The only difference is that in an abortion, the baby is injected with poison, killing him or her. This is done for no other reason than to prevent a live birth. It seems to be common sense that injecting deadly poison into a woman’s body would carry some risk. It is hard to believe that it is safer to inject poison and induce labor rather than to simply induce labor without the injection.”
Essentially, abortion advocates are defending injecting a mother with poison in order to kill her baby so she can give birth to a dead baby. Can anyone explain how such a practice is needed to save the life of the mother? What is the difference between giving birth to a live baby and giving birth to a dead baby? Is injecting poison into a woman’s body in the best interest of the mother? The answers to these questions prove once again that abortion advocates care mainly about killing babies. Click here for original article.
About Nathan Cherry
Nathan Cherry is the chief editor and blogger for the Engage Family Minute blog, the official blog of the FPCWV. He serves also as the Regional Development Coordinator as a liaison to the pastor's of West Virginia. He is a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-religious freedom conservative. He is also a husband, father, pastor, author, musician, and follower of Jesus Christ.