:: The S.I.C.L.E. Cell ::

my view from the prison of a SICLE (Self-Imposed Child Loss Experience) due to debilitating maternal disease
:: welcome to The S.I.C.L.E. Cell :: bloghome
SEARCH THE CELL Google Custom Search
| thesiclecell@yahoo.com ::
:: After abortion[>]
:: RealChoice[>]
:: Silent Rain Drops[>]
:: Stanek![>]

:: Friday, May 06, 2005 ::

From Patte:

"Was Baby Rowan Born Alive? Let me provide a few compelling reasons for you readers to consider the possibility that Baby Rowan was born alive. First, from the autopsy results by medical examiner Dr Jan Garavaglia, it appears that Rowan may not have drawn a breath, however, air in the lungs is not the only signof live birth. According to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 (BAIPA), the definition of being "alive" includes three other criteria:

1) a beating heart and/or
2) a pulsating umbilical cord and/or
3) movement of voluntary muscles

Only one of these criteria must be met for a child to be protected under the BAIPA. Rowan's mother Angele observed her son moving his legs, turning his head, and grasping her finger. Rowan also exhibited the'startle response' (flaying out his arms and legs) when she screamed for help.

In light of the fact that the medical examiner autopsied Rowan's body 22 days after he died, we must accept that Dr. Garavaglia was unable to determine whether, in fact, Rowan's heart was beating or whether his cord was still providing him with oxygen or whether he was able to move in the toilet.

The autopsy report indicates that Rowan's body was 'trauma-free'. In a telephone interview Dr Garavaglia admitted that, upon examination of the infant's body, 'There was no evidence of needle marks.' Why is this information crucial and noteworthy? Because injection of digoxin into the fetal heart (through the mother's abdomen) is the protocol at EPOC (and Pendergraft's other abortuaries) for assuring fetal death before labor-and-delivery abortion from 22 weeks gestation and beyond. This is to be performed by the abortionist to prevent a live birth of a viable infant. If Rowan was NOT lethally injected before his birth, what would cause his death?

The Bottom Line:
I want to present a challenge on the purely humanitarian aspect of this abortion story. Putting aside the controversy as to whether the infant was alive at birth, let us look at the undisputed facts of this case:

Rowan was approximately five months gestation. He was aborted by the commonly performed "labor-and-delivery" method. He was delivered into the toilet, where Angele was instructed by an abortuary employee to push.

I'd like to pose a few questions:

Does this second trimester abortion episode trouble you at all? Do you find it in the least bit repugnant that a fully formed potentially viable human infant can be put through the ordeal of an extremely premature delivery at the whim of his mother and $1900 cash to the local abortion staff?

As a person of conscience, doe sthis type of "procedure" on a little baby strike you as, in the very least, morally questionable?

Can you admit that what happened to Rowan, regardless of whether he "survived" in the toilet for eleven minutes, was reprehensible?

As you mentally, intellectually, emotionally, spiritually and ethically interact with the fact that thousands of infants in Orlando, over the last few years alone, have been subjected to this same experience of forced premature delivery, can you honestly conclude that this is decent, honorable, acceptable and humane treatment in response to a"crisis" pregnancy?

I would like you readers to entertain the compassionate possibility that a child's value is inherent, that one person's significance is an objective truth that should never be religated to the subjective whims of another.

Most religions would add to this the fact that each new life is a soul that has sprung from God.

Rowan's own mother went from a subjective perception of her son's value to an objective revelation of his wondrous personhood. Angele experienced an epiphany when she saw her baby for what he was: a precious, beautiful little boy.

Randy Alcorn said: 'There is no such thing as an unwanted child, only unwanting adults.' While it is true that these abortion-vulnerable infants are not always 'wanted' by their mothers (and in most cases, their fathers) there is a place of wantedness for each of them. There is a long list of couples on the adoption waiting list who are dreaming of these very same babies.

'One person's junk is another person's treasure.'

Isn't it time we stop making excuses and admit that there is simply no justification for hurting children? Isn't it time that we admit that abortion, especially of viable infants, is simply intrinsically wrong? And finally, isn't it time that we did something about it?"

:: ashli 10:02 PM # ::

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?