Quote:
Originally Posted by JHC
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.
|
JHC, again, re-read post #143. The distinction is NOT (or should not be) that this is a more disgusting form of abortion, but that it is
pointlessly disgusting. The exact same procedure could be done for the sake of the mother without that final, sickening act of crushing the skull.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHC
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.
|
I'm sorry if I missed it. Can you give me the post # again and I'll go back to it. But the question is not whether late-term abortions are ever necessary (sometimes they obviously are) or whether intact-extraction is necessary, but whether the procedure specified in the bill (which includes intact extraction AND then the active killing of the fetus) is, as a whole, necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHC
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.
|
Again, not "more henious" but
needlessly henious. Crushing the infants skull
serves no purpose!
This may indeed term out to be the first step toward banning all late-term abortions not necessary for the mother. But to-date there is no consensus on what that kind of policy should look like. There is general consensus on this particular part of it, thus it became law. The rest will come (or not) depending on what consensus can or cannot be reached.