Posted on 11/09/2006 5:06:25 PM PST by Graybeard58
Basically the issue is this. Where does abortion end and infanticide begin? That is the important part of the legislation. The act seeks to draw that line by outlawing one procedure but allowing others based on geography. Of course you know how i feel about that but the hope from the pro life perspective is incrementalism so in that regard the decision will be significant.
It all has to do with constitutional "penumbras".
Fricken lawyers.
OK, but the court seems to think that there is an alternative procedure to accomplish the same thing at the same time in the stage of fetal development, with maybe a very marginal increase in medical risk to the mother. Killing is killing, unless one things one form of killing is cruel and unusual versus another. I frankly don't get it, myself. I thought PBA was the only way to kill fetuses at such a late stage, but apparently not. If it is not, I have lost interest in the issue, as PBA qua PBA.
I'm not thrilled wit it either. I would have preferred legislation banning all late term abortion except to preserve the life of the Mom. You know, like the court held in Roe. :-}
"except to preserve the life of the Mom"
I'm all for total banning of all late term abortion.
What medical condition exists where it is necessary to dismember a baby in order to "save" the mother?
A baby can be induced to be born - this would no more stressful than a PBA or a procedure introducing sharp objects into the womb to cut the baby up.
If the mother's life is in danger, efforts can be made to save both of them.
Ah Roe, the bad jurisprudential case, which sired the subsequent Casey judicial Rosemary's Baby, as far as the Robes' fiat choice of a public policy. You know more about this issue than I do, from many perspectives; I made an erroneous tacit assumption. I hate when that happens. Those are the most dangerous assumptions of all. A more coherent and public and compelling case needs to be made against late term abortions, qua late term abortions, for some of the reasons I have stated, absent real and material physical risk which emerges to the mother. PBA was and is a deflection, it would appear. JMO.
Of course, why else would the birthing process not be allowed to proceed normally and deliver a live, healthy baby that thousands of childless couples are eagerly waiting to adopt if the mother doesn't want him or her?
This "medical procedure" is nothing less than deliberate murder with malice aforethought of an innocent, helpless baby as he or she struggles into the world and promptly gets it's head crushed for it's trouble. According to testimony before Congress by physicians who have no financial stake in the abortion mill industry, the "procedure" is very rarely, if ever, medically necessary to save the mother's life. People with a drop of normal human compassion for a helpless infant in their veins wouldn't allow that kind of inhuman cruelty to be inflicted on a puppy, much less a human baby.
I do not...cannot...comprehend such cruelty. The head is the largest part of a newborn. Once it has been delivered, what is the "danger" to the woman if the rest of the baby is born? This is nothing more than infanticide. The purpose is to make damn sure the baby is fully delivered....dead. Such cruelty is reserved to those who have some deep mental malady. I can't explain it any other way.
Several years ago Pat Buchanan was interviewing Patricia Ireland about this procedure and he was really pushing her about the baby's pain. She kept staring straight ahead and kept repeating "well, what i am concerned about is the condition of the mother blah blah blah. She never would admit that the baby feels pain. By the way, they introduced a bill a year or so ago to make it mandatory that the baby be given pain medicine before an abortion. I don't know whatever happened to the bill. I sure hope it passed.
The ACLU and PP-hood with NOW support and democrat party obstruction made sure that bill never made it to a vote because to admit the alive child in the womb feels pain is to at once admit that the child is a human being and the killing of that child is murder of a helpless human being. The state sponsored medical program in England has adopted such forced methodology though, but I do not remember what is their 'cut off' age before which no pain meds are required to dismember the child.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.