Quote:
Originally posted by filtherton
I don't know how that article is "pro" partial birth abortions, since it claims they don't really exist.
|
By that line of reasoning, one could be against the assault weapons ban and by virtue of claiming that assault weapons "don't really exist," be cradling an M-16 and not be pro-assault weapons.
Quote:
Originally posted by filtherton
These descriptions make it sound as if the child is in the process of being born. As if the doctors are taking a child who is literally moments away from living outside of the mother and killing it. I'm no a doctor, but don't think that is generally the case. The fact that it [requires a physician to extract a fetus]
i think is your proof that no child is about to be "born" in the traditional sense.
|
The fact that it requires a physician to extract the fetus does not mean a child is not about to be "born." Premature births require a physician, as do C-sections. Inducing a birth because of prolonged labor also requires a physician. All of these babies would be considered "born."
Perhaps you object that the babies would not have been "viable" if instead of jamming a sharp knife into the back of its skull and sucking out its brains, the physician delivered it. The only data we have is from Kansas, which in 1999 reported that in 182 cases, the doctor aborting the child considered it viable. Not pro-life advocates, I remind you, but the abortionist himself/herself.
In written testimony to Congress in 1995, abortion doctors testified to performing late term abortions on healthy babies up to the 29th week in pregnancy, when 23 weeks is typically the cut-off for consideration for premature delivery; maybe it is not coincidence that late term abortion advocates typical quote 20th to 22nd week.
It is quite clear, at least in written documentation submitted to the government by abortion clinics, that in many cases the baby would have survived at the time of abortion, that the abortion doctor partially delivered a premature baby and then mutilated it by cutting open the base of its skull in order to pull the brains from the body. We are looking at hundreds (in Kansas alone), if not thousands of babies that were minutes away from drawing their first breath of life that were instead barbarically murdered by an abortion doctor.
We are not talking about aborting a shapeless, formless mass of cells early in the pregnancy. This procedure requires locating the head and inflicting grevious damage to it. In many cases, in a gruesome twist, in the process of withdrawing the now-dead baby from the mother, the pressure from the birth canal crushes its skull. In many cases described above, this is a fully formed, healthy, viable baby, and not ones with severe genetic defects. At least as reported by abortion clinics to Congress.
Quote:
Originally posted by filtherton
The phrase "partial birth" shouldn't come into play at all. It is a loaded word with no real basis in reality. It is only accurate if you are trying to use it to evoke a kneejerk reaction in people. As such, it has no place in any kind of reasonable debate.
|
You don't like it because it is particularly evocative and persuasive, not because it has no basis in reality. While I am not a fan of the term, I can think of many less representative things to describe partially delivering a child and then killing it. However, since you seem particularly incensed by the term, I have used "late term abortion" where I could.
Quote:
Originally posted by filtherton
Especially since the women in question, apparently, have had nine full months before giving birth to have an abortion. Why would anyone wait until the last and worst possible minute?
|
Depression is the most common reported reason. By that line of reasoning, why would anyone wait six months? Seven months? Why would a woman all of a sudden decide at the 22nd week (but not the 23rd, or the 24th) that she wanted to abort, after carrying it for almost a half year?
Quote:
Originally posted by filtherton
That is what is wrong with this bill. It doesn't really outlaw anything except an easily circumvented method and is also thought to be a stepping stone for the further erosion of a woman's reproductive rights. The ramifications of this "ban" is that nothing of substance is going to be banned and maybe the pro-life movement finds a backdoor way to get abortion criminalized. Sounds like a good use of my tax dollars.
|
The 70% of the population that want this bill to pass (and late term abortions banned) understand that there are two separate issues, and thus only 45% follow up as being pro-life. To be honest the only reason abortion is not criminalized is a circumventing of the democratic process by the courts; as I described earlier the American population is much less supportive of abortion on demand. It is this vocal minority that is willing to put aside democratic principles in order to impose their will on the rest of the population.
-- Alvin