|
Re: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilettante
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.
|
How? In your professional experience, what is the preferable method of aborting the fetus other than crushing it's skull?
Quote:
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.
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.
|
I think an answer to this is premature until you've answered the question I posted to the first part of your post.
I'll be back.
__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn
|