"We'll abort all the babies we want - THANK YOU Jerk!"
Posted on 04/27/2007 7:57:52 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The U.S. Supreme Court's upholding of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act has elicited the usual cries of protest from abortion rights advocates and, also as usual, they include an assortment of Jewish groups and The New York Times.
That latter institution characterized the term "partial-birth abortion" itself as a "provocative label" for the presumably more descriptive "intact dilation and extraction." As it happens, The Times (and the other advocates) are correct about the inaccuracy of the term "partial birth abortion," but not because it exaggerates the repugnance of the procedure in question.
Despite concerted efforts by some to misrepresent the law, its language is stark and clear. It prohibits any overt act, like the puncturing of the brain, "that the person knows will kill" a fetus whose "entire… head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."
Thus, it is not abortion at all that the law at issue addresses, but rather the killing of a baby whose head or most of whose body has emerged into the world. Readers of The Times' editorial page, and much of the "mainstream" media, might be forgiven for not realizing what the procedure actually entails.
Nor have the media done a very good job explaining what exemptions the law does or does not contain. Since it does not contain an exemption for the mother's "health," there is wide assumption (at least from the evidence of calls and e-mails I have received) that even if the mother's life were somehow threatened by allowing the partially emerged infant to fully emerge, the federal prohibition would stand.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
has the NYT ever described the procedure it advocates?
ping
After the SCOTUS decision, I read an editorial decrying the lack of medical exemption for health of the mother. I sat shaking my head, wondering how killing a partially delivered baby made the mother any healthier. Either these people have no clue what this procedure really is or they are hoping others never find out.
Perhaps they should teach with pictures...
Knowledge is deadly to their cause. That’s why they try obsfucation. Hence the mother cannot be compelled to look at sonargrams because she might learn more than the medieval embryology that says that the fetus becomes human only at a late stage of its development. Ordinary people are realists. If they kick a stone with their toe, they know it hurts.
"We'll abort all the babies we want - THANK YOU Jerk!"
Please go to the following and find Chuck Baldwin’s article, ON THE PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION RULING.
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070427.html
Mr. Baldwin points out how soft and lax the supposed pro-life groups really are, and how they have failed to present the full implications of the SCOTUS ruling.
What I don’t understand (ok, there’s a lot I don’t understand) is how the women who chose to have a PBA, who were 7, 8, 9 months into the pregnancy, wouldn’t know full well what was happening. I’ve never heard of a medical procedure where the doctor didn’t describe in full detail to the patient everything that would happen.
Do these women really believe that the ‘tissue’ that’s been kicking in their belly for months isn’t a life? Or do they not care? One doesn’t get that far along in a pregnancy without having had sonograms. The AMA reported that there is NO medically justifiable ‘save the life of the mother’ reason for a PBA.
One has to wonder what motivates anyone to undergo the procedure and how, having had it, they can live with themselves absent total isolation of their emotions. This IS a late stage of development .. how do these women deny that it’s a life they are taking? If they didn’t want a child and chose to abort, why did they wait so long?
I can understand how women who’ve been indoctrinated into not believing it’s a human life until a later stage of development might opt in the early stages for an abortion, but the mental contortions they’d have to go through after so many months to rationalize a PBA totally baffles me.
Then WE should call PBA “stab-the-baby-in-the-head” abortion.
Abortion has become the “sacrament” of the feminists because it demonstrates that they have power over men because even if the get sc—ed they can get rid of the man-stuff.
Sure works for me...
Well, there are women who chose to kill their infant children. So in my opinion, late abortions are pretty much the same as infanticide. The difference is that abortions are legal.
Abortion, infanticide, same thing.
I believe he's Reverend Baldwin.
Chuck Baldwin was the Constitution Party candidate for Vice President in 2004 with Michael Peroutka.
You’re correct. I voted for ‘em.
IANAP, but because the skull crushes down after the brain is removed, I imagine that in a case where the mother couldn’t deliver a full-size cranium, it might be required for maternal health. However, I’m sure they are thinking of the “rape/incest-mental health” loophole that would be used.
“The difference is that abortions are legal.” Not any more for PBA’s !!! Of course it’s infanticide .. and SCOTUS has now deemed it so, hasn’t it ? I haven’t read the decision, just read the Cliff Notes ;)
Episiotomy. C-section. There is never a need to remove a baby's brain.
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.