I must admit that I've never heard the killing portion of this procedure argued for in that way. Basically, that it should be allowed because it keeps the infant, who is going to die anyway, from suffering, yes? A kind of "mercy killing". Infantile euthanasia, if you will.

In that case, the question is one of how we shall end the suffering of what is likely a very, very premature baby that is going to die. May I submit that cracking it's skull open and sucking out its brain might not be the most humane way of dealing with the situation?

If, after extraction, it becomes clear that the baby is not viable and that it will undergo prolonged suffering with no hope of survival, then the doctors should be able to (and, as far as I know, can) help it pass away peacefully. But this kind of needless barbarity, with the skull and the brains and whatnot, is emphatically not the way to do it.

And what if, perchance, the baby is viable? Surely there should be some legal protection for it.

I hope not (though I doubt it), but it deeply disturbed me that, until now, there was no law against it. Without this law, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that says a woman can't pay a doctor to partially extract and then brutally kill a perfectly healthy baby.
By labeling it an "medical procedure" and keeping the head in the birth canal for a few seconds longer, what would otherwise have been considered one of the most sickening and unthinkable crimes a person could commit becomes perfectly legal. That's a hole in the law that should not exist.

Sorry for the gruesome details, but AFAIK, it is done this way because unless the baby is cut into small pieces, it would stay inside the mother's uterus, and both would die. It is perfectly legitimate. Nobody has the right to condemn the mothers to death because the procedure offends their sensibilities.

No they would not have to say that because that is not the question. When a woman presents with request for an abortion a doctor suggests the method most appropriate for that woman at that time. Now that this procedure is illegal the doctor will recommend another which will be, in some cases, not the safest method.

The decision about which method to use is made after the decision that an abortion will be performed.

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

Ah, I think we're talking about different procedures.
The procedure in which the baby is cut up and removed bit by bit is "Dilation and Extraction" (D&E), and is not addressed by this law at all. And yes, there are certainly times when, for whatever reason, removing the baby intact would endanger the mother's life.

This law bans a different procedure, "intact dilation and extraction" (ID&E) in which the baby is removed whole. And even then, it provides an exception if, for some bizarre reason, the mother's life was endangered.

Well, if the doctor knows that the safest procedure is not to have an abortion and he doesn't think this is worth even mentioning to the patient, then that doctor should be stripped of his license.

It would be like a patient with a sinus allergy saying he wants to have his nose removed (and asking the safest way to do it) and the doctor not bothering to mention that perhaps keeping his nose and taking some medication would be a safer way to go.

My bad. So the only reason the infant is killed while still partially in the birth canal is to keep the procedure legal?

No worries.
I have yet to discover any good reason for killing the infant in this manner.

But, yes, I suspect that if someone made a pratice delivered the entire baby alive and then cracked it's skull open and sucked out its brains, they would very shortly be put in prison (I would hope so anyway).

It is standard ethical practice for doctors to "first do no harm" to a patient. That practice is assumed as a baseline and is not addressed by this legislation or by the court case, both of which address only the choice of procedure, not the issue of whether to abort.

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

OK fine. But remember that it was you who ended this discussion.

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

OK. I have no argument with that.

What? Who are you talking to and how did they "end this discussion"?

In my last post to Marcus I said "If you continue to discuss this legislation as if it had something to do with preventing abortion then I really don't see any point in continuing."

He responded by discussing this legislation as if it has something to do with preventing abortions. I take that (along with being called a dick, ignorant, and fixated on killing babies) as a sign that he/she has no further desire to continue.

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

Ah, OK. Sorry.
I hadn't been keeping up much with the posts between the two of you.

Update:
Told ya so.

The argument was dishonest. It was a consorted effort to undermine abortion subversively.

Here's what Dobson said about Partial Birth Abortion as he concedes that it will save only a very few fetus' because there are other methods that are less safe to the woman and thereby exposing doctors to more liability.

__________________
...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 am pro choice in the sense that men and woman have free choice to engage in the activity that causes pregnancy. I am also pro responsibility. That is, individuals shoule embrace the personal responsibility that comes with making choices ( in all areas of life not just sexual).

Has anyone ever heard of a legitimate reason for undergoing a partial birth abortion? Considering the cruelty to the fetus (aka child), why would the "bleeding" heart liberals embrace it so?