Just wanted to say I'm glad the Supreme Court decided you don't have a constitutional right to do the following to a five month old fetus/baby/infant:
Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus' leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull and a suction catheter is inserted into the cut. The brain tissue is removed, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a suction curette.
(Quoted from the Wikipedia article on Intact dilation and extraction (aka Partial Birth), emphasis mine)
Flickr/johnstephi
Twitter/epaga
Blog/John Goering
ICQ/326928754
4 Kommentare:
of course, given the percentage of abortions that actually are partial birth (a little less then 2%), and that about 85% of those are only performed to protect the mothers health, and that the law does not make exceptions for the mother's health, it probably means that about 3000 women will die or be seriously injured this year. yeah!
Zakcq, I know you like to be provocative and play Devil's Advocate and all, but really - IMHO this is going way too far.
You're implying it's justified to suck someone's brains out and crush their skull so that someone else won't be seriously injured.
You're also implying that those statistics are completely watertight. The judges had one of their greatest divisions over precisely the statistics and numbers on how often partial birth is actually employed in which situations.
As well, the ban actually does include an exception "for the life of the woman, but explicitly not for non-life-threatening health issues." Are you seriously arguing that it's justified to kill a baby so the mom doesn't get injured? If so, could you explain your reasoning? If not, why do you imply that that is your opinion, other than to unnecessarily provoke?
Oh boy, another debate on abortion. I am glad to be working for and with women who've decided to keep their babies (house parent at a maternity home); rather than oppose people who decide to kill theirs. Maybe, just maybe, they will talk their friends out of abortions based on the compassion and care they were shown. There's my passivity coming out.
I very much agree that it's almost always more effective to get BEHIND a good cause than it is to OPPOSE a bad one.
Unfortunately, Christians always tend to be known for what they're against.
Kommentar veröffentlichen