I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) you're refering to
post #111. I fail to see how crushing the skull after it emerged could
possibly benefit the woman in any of those cases. If you know of a way, I am willing to hear you out.
The Dr. you mention was defending the necessity of
some late-term abotions, not this particular procedure and certainly not the final, grisly act that makes it so disturbing.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that late-term abortions might rarely be necessary to save the mother's life/health. Any broad-based ban on them should have to include such an exception.
And in the absurdly unlikely (and, thus far, umimaginable) senario that a woman's life depended on her child's skull being crushed after it was already outside of her, it is the responsibility of the court to not hold the doctor involved liable for deviating from the law in that one, unspeakably rare, incidient.
The Court has always held that just because a law could hypothetically, in some freakishly bizarre twist of chance, turn out badly, that does not make it a bad law.
I still havne't seen any. Post #111 offered no explination of how killing the fetus outside the womb was in any way useful to the woman. If you think I've misunderstood it, please clarify how the act of crushing the fetus' skull after it emerged was beneficial to the woman.
Or if you were speaking of a different post, I apologize for missing it, can you please direct me to it?