_I was reading an article about late-term abortions from the Washington Post's website and this one paragraph got me thinking:

"Perhaps, then, it’s not surprising that many abortion restrictions target late-term abortions. This year alone, five states banned abortions after 20 weeks. Even Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that protected first-trimester abortion, only protects third-trimester abortions when the life or health of the mother is at risk."

Sure, the way the author uses "protected" makes it sound really biased but that's not what caught my eye. It was where it pointed out that even Roe v. Wade in 1973 didn't allow third-trimester abortions under normal circumstances. It also says that, "Just 10 percent of Americans think abortion ought to be legal in the last three months of pregnancy". I was surprised when I read this because I've always thought that since Roe v. Wade late-term abortions were more accepted and that with new medical research more debate has arisen as to the ethics of these late-term abortions. Almost 20 years ago abortionist Martin Haskell wrote a paper describing the Dilation and Extraction method says that it is easier to do and he had at that point performed over 700 of them. We can only imagine how many more he has done since. My point though is that if there has always been more restriction on late-term abortions, then why is enforcing the restrictions taken so lightly? Is it even done at all?
I know that at Haskell's abortion clinics in Ohio he has been allowed to avoid laws governing health regulations. I doubt that anybody is checking to make sure that he isn't aborting babies past the deadline past by the state. How do we know he's not doing any kind of procedure he wants to? We've all heard stories of babies that were strangled or just thrown out to die as trash, and how do we know that's not still being done at abortion clinics today?

A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said: 

'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together.' 

So the doctor said: 'Ok and what do you want me to do?' 

She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.'

The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too.'

She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request. 

Then he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care 2 babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.' 

The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child!' 

'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.' 

The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point. 

He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's still in the womb. The crime is the same! 

If you agree, please SHARE. 

Together we can help save precious lives! 

Love says, 'I sacrifice myself for the good of the other person.' Abortion says, 'I sacrifice the other person for the good of myself.'

By: Life is Dangerous: Let's Ban It

The Hippocratic oath is taken by almost all physicians upon graduation from medical school. I would assume that even most abortionists take this oath. I wonder if they take it seriously or if it's just a tradition they want to be a part of.
The original wording of the Hippocratic oath says,

"I will not give a woman a [drug] to cause an abortion." and also, "I will do no harm or injustice to [my patients]."

And yet some physicians who take the oath still perform abortions throughout their careers. Sure, the wording has changed quite a big over the years and there is some argument about the interpretation of it but essentially the general idea is the same- cure the sick and do no harm.  Why even agree to an oath like this if you're going to be taking lives, and getting paid to do it too? To me, it doesn't make sense.