Chuck Baldwin Asks Christians, "Is President Bush Really One of Us?"

Chuck Baldwin Ministries ^ | 10-24-03 | Baldwin, Chuck

[alnick]

No, you left out the part which proves your allegation false.

[MississippiMan]

No, you left out the part which proves your allegation false.

Then why don't you post that part?

MM

[Torie]

You need to address the suction allegation. Is that now a no longer an available tool per this Bill or not? What is your opinion, putting aside that you did indeed score a oint that the Bill addresses both halves of the body of the fetus provided enough of either half is out?

[TexKat]

Good night!!!

[alnick]

it would certainly be legal to ram something through the top of the baby's skull just as soon as it crowns.

No, they ram something in at the base of the skull, which is why the entire skull has to be exposed. Look, I agree that PBA is horrible murder, but you don't seem to want to accept that the PBA ban addresses that particular problem. It does.

[alnick]

I did.

[ozzymandus]

See what happens when you mess with the self-appointed guardians of the holy post?? Somebody here sounds more like Barney Fife than Jack Ryan.

[Torie]

the entire skull has to be exposed

Cool, now where the rubber meets the road has been identified, and the debate can proceed over your asserted factoid. Well done. It is grand when progress through the mire is achieved. I of course don't have a clue whether alternative procedures can be effected to suck out the brain or not.

[deport]

Yes I've read it...... thanks. The bill as I read it makes abortion prohibitive if the head is totally delivered in a normal head first delivery and if the body is delivered past the navel in a breech deliver.... In either of those two situations then it's prohibited to preform the overt act.

Now is the head isn't delivered totally in a head first delivery then as I read it the overt act can be preformed, if that's possible.... The same in a breech delivery if the delivery hasn't reached the navel then the overt act can be preformed...

Am I missing something.

[TexKat]

LOL. Bye!

[alnick]

You need to address the suction allegation. Is that now a no longer an available tool per this Bill or not?

From what I can see, the word "suction" is not used, but the act does refer to "removing the baby's brains."

link

(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

[alnick]

Now is the head isn't delivered totally in a head first delivery then as I read it the overt act can be preformed, if that's possible.... The same in a breech delivery if the delivery hasn't reached the navel then the overt act can be preformed... Am I missing something.

Well, the head is always punctured at the base of the skull, so in order to do that, the entire head would have to be exposed in a head-first delivery, and in a breach delivery, the baby would have to be partially delivered to a point where the base of the skull would be at least at the birth canal in order to access it.

[NordP]

Answer to Chuck - Yes.

[MississippiMan]

Well, let's assume you're right for a moment, even though you're not. (Current procedures do not require delivery of the entire head.) But let's say that the current way to perform a PBA is to deliver the entire head. Do you think they CAN'T just change the point at which they puncture the skull now? OF COURSE THEY CAN! Surely you agree that by the wording of this bill, a procedure of ramming something into the top of the skull as soon as the baby crowns, would NOT be banned. That's crystal clear. And if that be the case, WHY would the bill be written in such a manner that simply changing one little aspect of the procedure renders the bill irrelevant?

Why not make it clear that ANY kind of partial-birth abortion is banned? This isn't some tricky legalese we're talking about here. It's plain English, and anyone, certainly including abortionists, can see at first reading that all they have to do to circumvent the bill is make a slight change in the procedure. Again, WHY design a bill like this? Even after such a change, it's STILL a partial-birth abortion and still just as horrid, right?

MM

[anncoulteriscool]

..and I ask Chuck Baldwin to go suck an egg!

[deport]

Well, the head is always punctured at the base of the skull,

---

Always?......... The question now becomes will another procedure or method be developed or used?

[alnick]

I'm sure that the bill wasn't written in order to fool the population into thinking that PBA's have been banned when they actually haven't. They obviously defined it that way because that's the definition.