Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilettante
Refering back to post #143, the difference is not necessarily the level of brutality, but the need for that brutality.
I'm a little confused here. This ban doesn't say that it will never be necessary to abort a fetus in late stages. It just says that, when that must happen, this particular method isn't the way to do it.
|
Exactly but this particular method is no more disgusting than any other. I can't get around that and if you understood abortion methods you wouldn't be saying that either.
Quote:
|
I predict that the general population doesn't like the idea of abortion-on-demand in the mid-to-late stages of pregnancy.
|
I think that is the target.
Quote:
However, I also predict that they are extremely wary of banning procedures that might be needed to preserve the life/health of the mother. That's why they don't support any blanket ban on late-term abortions.
This procedure was presented as one which is never useful for preserving the life/health of the mother (and thus far, no one has explained why it would be), and which was almost always done in the mid-to-late stages. Consequentially, it was a natural target.
|
In the case I offered of the doctor who aborted lated term pregnancies, there were clear reasons why it was done and in the case of those late terms, partial birth is usually the method. You keep saying nothing has been presented but its right there.
You are saying exactly what I surmized as the problem. The target of partial birth abortion (because it is presented as somehow more heinous than any other abortion), is a lie. The target is aborting a fetus late term unless it is a case of saving the mothers life. I can't say it better than you did yourself. Then the case should have been one regarding exactly that. The method is not the issue.