I still don't see where the ACOG specifies that.
Doesn't it make more sense that the part of the procedure medically useful to the mother (and thus pointed to by the ACOG) is the intact extraction, not the active killing part that so upsets people?

There are certainly people who feel that way.

But it seems like you're trying to push people into one of two extreme camps: Those who would forbid all abortions ever (or only allow them to protect the mom)
Or those who would always allow abortion by any means, even if it meant extracting all but the kids toes and then smashing him with a sledge hammer.

I think that the vast majority of people fall somewhere in the middle. They don't want to end legal abortion, but they aren't comfortable with allowing any and all abortions by any means. It is a vast spectrum of gray area, which is not totally consistent with the ideology of either end of the spectrum.
This laws seems to reflect that.

How does that make sense?

If the intact extraction is preferable to the inutero dismembermant and annihalation then I guess I'd agree. The hypocrisy of that sentiment is disconcerting.

It is better to rip someone limb from limb as long as your eyes are closed when they die?

Do you see?

PS, please forgive my responding out of turn.

__________________
...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

Not quite. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the extremes of both arguments. Painting oneself into a corner is fault of the individual and has nothing to do with my revealing the predicament to them.

Indeed. The vast majority of Americans support abortion. No one agrees to limits because no one can come up with a fair and legitimate, religiously unbiased argument either way.

All we know is that most Americans apparently can see themselves in a situation in which they might be faced with such a horrendous decision and they can imagine the state claiming authority over their own judgement - and they don't like it.

This PBA decision is ineffectually and illegitimately argued. IMO.

__________________
...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

That's one of those BS canards that the Pro-Abortion lobby likes to bandy about. As it turns out, the vast majority of Americans also support placing new LIMITS on abortion!

Stop your dishonesty, JHC.

An intact D&E "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of the woman, and only the doctor in consultation with the patient, based on the woman's particular circumstances can make that decision. [ACOG Statement of Policy on Abortion (reaffirmed 2004)]"

I really don't see what there is to argue about. You either believe it or you decide this professional medical association lied in their amicus brief.

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice

...OR you wonder what context this was said in. Were they focusing only on other procedures also classified as abortions, or all medical procedures in general?
On the face of it, since I can't imagine how stabbing the baby's head affects the extraction, it seems more sensible to just assume that this partial-sentence was made in a context that only included other abortion procedures.
I'm not accusing them of lying, I'm merely suggesting that the context might not be so all-inclusive. The press release quoted in post #108 lends itself to possibility. Note that the only alternatives considered there are "abdominal surgery or induction abortion", both other types of abortion.

The difference, I think, is not that in one case one's "eyes are closed", but the necessity of the brutal act.

Inutero dismembermant is necessary if the women's body cannot support intact extraction. In that case the "brutal act" ("ripping limb from limb") is itself necessary to preserve the mother's health/life.

In the case of intact extraction, it appears that the "brutal act" (crushing the infact's skull) is immaterial to the mother's health/life, and done almost as an after thought.

No worries. I generally consider any publically posted comment to be open to reply.

Very true. But the majority also favor limits on abortions, demonstrating the gray middle-ground I spoke of.
Clearly the general consensus, if it could all be averaged together, would be somewhere between the two extremes: legal abortions, but not in any an all circumstances and not (apparently) by any and all means.

We also know that, in spite of that, most Americans approve of a ban on this method of abortion.

I don't agree. I don't think most americans know just exactly what they are opposing. This entire thread is a case in point; nearly every poster immediately responded as if the ban had been on late term abortions. At least you and I can agree that it is most definitely not.

The arguments of the Supreme Court Justices are in many ways similarly biased which is a dishonest argument.

The only area in which you and I differ is the particular brutality of partial birth. I will make one more argument on this front to show that the particular methodology is no more heinous than any other.

Inducing labor prematurely in order that the fetus exits the womb as part of an abortion procedure means the fetus does not require mechanical removal, no intrusion, no instruments inside the woman. This same process happens in miscarriage. There is a reason that partial birth abortions are associated with late term abortions - that is a common method of abortion for late term pregnancies. I've already given examples of a doctor as to why this method is sometimes considered preferable. The remaining argument is whether or not an abortion at such stage is particularly heinous. Back to my original point - it is the stage of development of the fetus that we find particularly revolting. There is no other logical conclusion.

And having said that, I can again justify the incorrectness of the ban based on there never being a necessity to abort a fetus in late stages. "Never" is unqualified and therefore immediately a misstatement. There are cases, have been cases and will be cases in which such decisions must be made. It is, has and always will be a condition of mankind.

__________________
...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

I don't see how any of this is relevant. Abortion is legal. In some cases this form of abortion is "the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." Expecting ACOG to compare this procedure to other procedures which are not abortions therefore makes no sense that I can see.

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice

It's relevant only in trying to understand precisely the ACOG meant. The big question on which people looked to the ACOG was whether or not this method was ever necessary to save the mother's life/health.
In light of that, it becomes important to know whether it "may be the best or most appropriate" of any procedures, or only the "the best or most appropriate" of abortion procedures.

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.

I predict that the general population doesn't like the idea of abortion-on-demand in the mid-to-late stages of pregnancy. 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.

I agree. But if we can't have an honest and educated discussion then we have little options. Using dishonest tactics to attack the fringes in an attempt to undermine the foundation is dangerous. I'm sure, as an adult, that you've learned what happens if you lie - it leads to more lies.

I do believe this last quote is against the forum rules. If you think I'm lying, you're supposed to show my false statements to the world and let them come to their own conclusions.

__________________
...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

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.

I think that is the 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.

__________________
...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