Dependence

[svanhoeven]

There she is:
Lifeless in a pool of blood.

Oh, how my heart attacks,
banging my chest to get out
and be with her.

Air suffocates my lungs.
Internally drowning in eternal emptiness.
^--I think you can drop "internally", since "lungs" and "drowning" already imply it.

Love hates my heart.
My heart to sacrifice my only begotten child- <-- a little confusing - do you mean "Love hates my heart for sacrificing..."?
for my own stability.

So, I'm nothing God-like. <-- I kind of get what you're saying, but I think the reader can draw the conclusion without the line. Plus, the phrasing is a little clunky and indirect.


He entrusted me with her.
Only I could've saved her.
Only I could've graved her.
But in my arms, would she be any safer?
^-- my favorite stanza, it has a nice rhythm plus the saved vs. graved opposition which other have already discussed.

I couldn't help it.
<-- I think you can drop this blank line since the ideas here are grouped together.
It would've taken my all.
It would've needed me.
But, even I couldn't have self-dependency. <--Do you mean dependency on yourself, or do you mean the baby's dependence on you? To me, "Self-dependence" is the former, not the latter idea.

No peace.
No daddy.
No home.

We were both alone.
^-- I see from your comment that I misread the "being alone apart" idea you were trying to convey. Maybe you could flesh out the context of the aftermath a little more?

If I were to outline the narrative, it would look like this:

There she is:
Lifeless in a pool of blood.
[interior dialogue/emotions]
We were both alone.

Is it all the same scene? The beginning sounds like they're together, since the first-person narrator says "There she is:", then you're offering the image of the blood. Without a transition of some kind, the reader assumes that it's the same scene at the end. That's how I read it, anyway.