(Daily Mail) — Nebraska’s new abortion law forced one woman to give birth to her terminally ill, premature baby who she then helplessly held dying in her arms.
With this heartbreaking information [that their baby would not survive] the couple decided to have an abortion to avoid the baby going through any pain.
However a new law in Nebraska, the only one of its kind in America, bars abortion at 20 weeks except in specific situations when the mother’s life is in immediate danger.
The Deavers did not qualify and were not allowed to have an abortion. Instead they were sent home where they had to wait for ten days knowing that when their baby arrived she had no chance of surviving.
After the days of waiting Deaver gave birth to Elizabeth and held her as she struggled for breath and died fifteen minutes later.
Danielle Deaver,34, of Grand Island, described the pain of waiting to give birth to a baby she knew would die.
‘While we waited, we tried to pray, but we didn’t know what to pray for. So we spent our days and nights telling our daughter how much we loved her, how sorry we were, and how we wished we could do something different.
‘There are no words for how awful the 10 days were from the moment my water broke to the day my daughter died. There are no words for the heart break that cut deeper every time she moved inside of me for those 10 days,’
Make no mistake, this couple’s story is both tragic and sad, and I am in no way trying to minimize the family’s anguish. But does the knowledge that their baby will not survive justify taking its life while still in the womb through abortion?
As much as I can try to empathize with the couple, I don’t know that they have thought through what it is they are actually saying. Essentially, Mrs. Deaver seems to believe that it’s better to take her daughter’s life through abortion (which is a particularly grizzly procedure for the baby) rather than allow her daughter to die from natural causes in the warmth of her mother’s arms.
Tragically, we know that regardless of whether Deaver aborts or gives birth, her daughter will not survive. Having the abortion will not spare her daughter any pain, however. It only serves to allow the baby to die outside the view of her parents. Of course I can understand wanting to spare yourself of seeing your child die in your arms, but does the emotional turmoil somehow justify taking the baby’s life? I don’t think so.
Had their child been born and lived 6 months or a year or two and began to die, would she prefer being absent from her daughter’s side leaving her at the hospital during the process and let the hospital dispose of the body in order to spare her own heartache? I sincerely doubt it. In fact, I’d wager she would want to be with her baby every step of the way. Like any parent, Mr. and Mrs. Deaver would likely take leave from work and sleep at their child’s bedside to ensure they didn’t miss a single moment they had left.
Clearly the Deavers didn’t view their baby as merely a fetus. They were not confused as to what was occupying Mrs. Deaver’s womb. It wasn’t a mass of tissue, a collection of cells, or a parasite feeding off her body. They knew it was their daughter, she just hadn’t been born yet.
Admittedly this sounds callous but it’s not my intention. However, the Deavers preferred killing their daughter over allowing her to die with dignity in her mother’s arms. For this baby’s sake, I thank God that this law was in place. Frankly, I don’t see how preferring abortion to death by natural causes is somehow more loving or dignified.