Quote:
Originally Posted by JHC
The only technical difference between partial birth abortion and any other kind of abortion is that the fetus is killed outside the womb after labor is induced. It isn't necessarily performed late term even. In many cases, it is used as a method that will preserve the health of the woman's uterus or cervix when other abortion methods would not be as safe.
...
|
That right there captures why I see no problem with this ruling.
The law "makes it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion when the 'entire fetal head' or 'any part of the fetal trunk past the navel' is outside the woman's uterus."
If the health of the women allows for the "birth" of half the fetus/baby, how on earth is the women helped by the doctor stabbing that half before the rest is "born"? It's not like crushing the skull
when it's already outside is going to make removing the rest any easier.
If the fetus isn't viable, then it will die without the doctor having to stab it to death. If it is viable, then the doctor sure has hell shouldn't be stabbing it.
The actual act of the abortion in this procedure (i.e. the killing of the fetus) is either utterly unnecessary (it wasn't viable) or serves only to kill a living human (it was viable). It doesn't do the woman any good.
That's why this procedure is so disturbing. If the women's body won't survive birth, then it makes perfect sense to kill and cut up the fetus in utero so it can be removed in smaller, easier pieces. It's disgusting, but it can be necessary.
But this? This is also disgusting but it serves no purpose.