Pinged from Terri Dailies
8mm
Posted on 02/07/2007 1:18:11 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Key Facts on Partial-Birth Abortion
(excerpts)
In a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a living baby feet-first out of the womb and into the birth canal (vagina), except for the head, which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside the cervix (the opening to the womb). The abortionist punctures the base of the baby’s skull with a surgical instrument, such as a long surgical scissors or a pointed hollow metal tube called a trochar. He then inserts a catheter (tube) into the wound, and removes the baby's brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the skull to collapse, after which the abortionist completes the delivery of the now-dead baby.
The January 2003 Gallup poll found that 70% favored and 25% opposed “a law that would make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of pregnancy known as ‘partial birth abortion,’ except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother.” (margin of error +/- 3%)
The term “partial-birth” is perfectly accurate. Under both federal law and most state laws, a “live birth” occurs when a baby is entirely expelled from the mother and shows any signs of life, however briefly -- regardless of whether the baby is “viable,” i.e., developed enough to be sustained outside the womb with neo-natal medical assistance. Even at 4½ months (20 weeks), perinatologists say that if a baby is expelled or removed completely from the uterus, she will usually gasp for breath and sometimes survive for hours, even though lung development is usually insufficient to permit successful sustained respiration until 23 weeks.
Some prominent defenders of partial-birth abortions, such as NARAL's Kate Michelman and syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, insisted that anesthesia kills the babies before they are removed from the womb. This myth has been refuted by professional societies of anesthesiologists. In reality, the babies are alive and experience great pain when subjected to a partial-birth abortion. [Documentation on request.]
Here's a link that has helped me in sorting out my thoughts on voting concerning the issue of abortions.
http://www.lutheransforlife.org/Life_Issue_Info/Abortion/is_abortion_an_election_issue.htm
It appears to be a stretch of the interstate commerce clause, but then the liberal activist court has been holding the congress, the states and the people hostage for 30 some odd years with the ridiculous stretches and outright fabrications of Roe vs Wade. Call it the congress fighting back against an overreaching judiciary. It'd be great if we could get all of the unconstitutional stretches and fabrications tossed out. Maybe a constitutional crisis could be a good thing?
Why was I pinged?
This is an important thread, Sir. Thank you for posting it.
"In order for an abortion to be successful, what has to happen to the baby?"
Thanks for the ping!
Did you hear him say he would support partial birth abotion the other night on Hannity and Colmes. (Mother life the reason.)
Come on, if a child is in the birth canal, the mother is alive and well!
"In order for an abortion to be successful, what has to happen to the alive baby?"
Nothing nefarious. Just thought there would be some posts ont this thread that would be of interest to you.
If I was in error, a ping costs nothing to send and nothing to receive...
Of course you do. ;^)
God bless America
Land that I love
Stand beside her
And guide her
Though the night
With the Light from Above
Thank you very much for this thread.
BTTT
This is exactly Rudy Giuliani's position.
Moreover, he will appoint justices who are strict constructionists, in the mold of Alito, Roberts and Scalia. Isn't that the bottom line to stop these horrendous procedures and to protect life and liberty?
Yet some here are arguing, threatening, that if the candidate is too 'liberal,' they place their de facto vote for a Stalinist. Does this make any sense?
The political direction of our government lags behind, but reflects the political direction of the electorate. If the conservative cause grows, it will be reflected in political wins. If it is in decline, it will face losses.
It does the conservative cause no good to become petulant and self-destructive.
Personally, I will back whichever candidate gets the nomination. I understand that it is crucial to keep the clintons out of the White House.
But some who find the Republican candidate too 'liberal' will be placing their de facto vote for a Stalinist (and a rapist, and someone who wants to crush the Religious Right and who was the proximate cause of 9/11).
And the payoff: a Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court instead of an Alito, Roberts or Scalia, marginalization, if not worse, of their religious beliefs.... And G-d knows what depth of failure in the War on Terror. Good going.
I find it hard to believe that those people aren't able to discern the difference between Giuliani and clinton. Frankly, if true, it is frightening.
I am advocating for Giuliani not because of his ideology. I am advocating for him because I believe he can win, and because I believe he possesses the qualities that this country desperately needs in these perilous times.
The other night, I heard a man who is not perfect, but a man of rare intelligence, humility, warmth, competence, strength and leadership.
We will be fortunate, indeed, and our babies, born and unborn, living and not yet imagined, will be infinitely safer, if he is our next president.
Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for starting this thread.
Why would blobs of protoplasm need anesthesia?
That is truly sick. May God have mercy on this world.
And if I remember correctly, there were no "new" taxes. Yeah, GHWB and Congress raised taxes, but I don't recall there being any new ones during his term.
Let me preface my answer to your question with this: I find the procedure horrendous, not justified for any reason except to save the mother's life.
I can imagine the following hypothetical situation:
The baby is grossly hydrocephalic and breech. His head cannot pass through the cervix. It is too large. The mother is hemorrhaging uncontrollably. She is bleeding to death. The doctors determine that the procedure, horrendous though it is, is the only way to save the mother.
What we have here is an ethical dilemma: Do we save the mother, or do we save the child?
Unless we can say with certainty that there exists no such possible scenario--and I believe we cannot, then the life-of-the-mother exception is ethically required, in my view.
And what harm is there, in an abundance of caution, to include the exception? If such a scenario never happens, the exception will never be invoked.
Actually, Newt Gingrich is, and has always been, pretty hardcore Pro-Life.
Perfect House record and ratings from life groups.
Here is a transcript from a recent interview with Newt Gingrich with "Winning the Future."
L: Sure. You think abortion should be a crime?
Newt: "I think that abortion should not be legal, and I think that how you would implement that I’m not sure."
L: OK, I’m not sure what that means —- it should not be legal. Would you make it a law that would consider it a crime to perform an abortion, or for a woman to have one? Should there be any legal protection for the unborn as far as you’re concerned?
Newt: "There should be. And I think the focus has been on doctors performing abortions. And in that sense that we want to move the society as rapidly as we can that people should select adoption rather than abortion and that choosing abortion is not acceptable."
Just one of many on Newt and Abortion. He's on our side, totally.
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.