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.]
WooHoo,Thank you Jim:)
Catholic Discussion Ping!
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.
This is quite a remarkable statement, Goldwater. I don't think many Freepers realize that Rudy Giuliani has never even been conservative by New York standards.
**Except... Rudy Giuliani(R) seems to be not all that bothered about it..**
After thinking about this, I CANNOT support Giuliani. We need someone to run for President who is all the way pro-life! (And who hasn't bashed Bush in any way at all.)
************
I agree. Duncan Hunter is looking good to me.
Thank you Jim, For explaining the butchery known as PBA and providing a forum for those that want it ended.
Sadly many in your own house wishing to promote candidates that think its no big deal will never read this thread.
Values and the honesty to express them are a reality they must avoid to keep their dream alive.
What would you think of a
Huckabee/southern governor for P
and
Gingrich/intellectual for VP
SOURCE: Official Archives of Rudolph W. Giuliani, 107th Mayor
As Delivered
Thank you very much for inviting me to say a few words of welcome.
This event shows that people of different political parties and different political thinking can unite in support of choice. In doing so, we are upholding a distinguished tradition that began in our city starting with the work of Margaret Sanger and the movement for reproductive freedom that began in the early decades of the 20th century.
As a Republican who supports a woman's right to choose, it is particularly an honor to be here. And I would like to explain, just for one moment, why I believe being in favor of choice is consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party.
In fact, it might be more consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. Because the Republican Party stands for the idea that you have to restore more freedom of choice, more opportunity, more opportunity for people to make their own choices rather than the government dictating those choices.
Republicans stand for lower taxation because we believe that people can make better choices with their money than the government will make for them, and that ultimately frees the economy and produces more political freedom. We believe that, yes, government is important, but that the private sector is actually more important in solving our problems.
So it is consistent with that philosophy to believe that in the most personal and difficult choices that a woman has to make with regard to a pregnancy, those choices should be made based on that person's conscience and that person's way of thinking and feeling. The government shouldn't dictate that choice by making it a crime or making it illegal.
I think that's actually a much more consistent position. Many Republicans support that position, but you don't hear that as often. For example, in a recent poll by American Viewpoint, 65 percent of Republicans supported changing the plank in the Republican platform that calls for a constitutional ban on abortion. That's 6.5 out of every 10 Republicans. And over 80 percent of Republicans believe that the decision with regard to an abortion should be made by a woman, her doctor, and her family rather than dictated by the government.
[Applause]
In any case, I just wanted you to know that many of my fellow Republicans stand with you on this issue. So I thank you, I thank NARAL for taking the lead in establishing freedom of choice for all of us, and as the Mayor of New York City, I thank you for being here in New York City.
This seems to me to be the third (were there more?) in a series of posts by #1 FReeper to address a very, very strange phenomenon on this forum--i.e., the willingness of so many self-described conservatives to support a social liberal on grounds that he could possibly defeat the much-hated Mrs. Clinton. Those FReepers have plenty of company these days. I turned off Sean Hannity on the radio this afternoon because I could not stand to hear him conceding defeat to liberalism. Jim Robinson has not conceded defeat, nor will he. THANK GOD!
I thought Giuliani supported the ban if it included an exception to save the mother's life? Is that not reasonable? I'm not talking "health" of the mother, but seems there are situations that could force a tough decision. Don't get me wrong, I think abortion is a worse moral violation than slavery, which we eventually had the courage to prohibit. But if a non-viable baby has to be aborted to save the mother's life, it seems like saving the mother's life is the greater good. If the baby is viable, or stands a chance of viability, then it should be delivered, not aborted.
RE:#51---I'm sure I'm not the first to notice this, but there seems to be an unusually high percentage of photos of Giuliani where he is wearing a crazed smile on his face. Most politicos will grin,smile, and/or look thoughtful/serious as the need or mood requires---Giuliani seems in the grip of some crazed mental zone about half the time.
Uh oh, I guess I confess my ignorance about Giuliani's abortion position. I believe my earlier post specifically referencing partial birth abortions may be correct, but it's clear Giuliani is further left on this position than I thought. I've been recently coming around to liking Giuliani among a so far very weak field of Republicans. Regarding abortion however, the President's main influence is on which Judges get appointed, and he is on record supporting candidates like Thomas and Scalia. Reagan, Bush, and Bush were pro life presidents and it seems abortions are more common than ever. Just trying to think big picture here.
AMEN!!!
As a group, we need to figure out if we are Conservatives who see the Republican Party as, currently, the best way to advance Conservatism, or if we are Republicans who see Conservatism as, currently, the best way to advance the Party.
As for myself, I am the former.
And I am no more likely to vote for a pro-abort, anti-gun, pro-amorality candidate, regardless of party, than I am to vote for Kruschev.
the fruit of the womb for the sin of the soul
I would LOVE to see someone Pro-Life on the Republican side both get the nomination AND get the Presidency. But the ONLY way that will happen, and it IS a long shot, given the way this issue is thoroughly demagogued and fear-mongered, is if the issue itself is laid out and presented as a legitimate subject for discussion, what it has meant for our national character for the last 34 years, what any new revisions to the "settled law" of Roe V. Wade would mean, most importantly, what the reasonable first steps would be to help wean us away from abortion-on-demand, the wholesale practice of abortion as if it is a positive value, etc. etc.One might start with bringing out Norma McCorvey, (Jane Roe), who turned pro-life after it became clear that her "friends" on the Left were using her merely to advance their agenda. They dumped her almost instantly when they found out she was a Lesbian and unattractive to boot,(not that most of them aren't also both). There is NEVER an discussion of this issue--it should take center-stage, considering how much of a staple it has become for Democrats to get themselves elected.
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.