Replies

In partial birth abortion the child is extracted from the mother's womb, until only the head remains in the birth canal; he is then killed by suctioning out the brains and collapsing the skull.

Has anyone ever come up with an example of this being medically necessary as opposed to the quicker procudure of the doctor giving one last tug and having a live birth?

Has anyone ever come up with an example of this being medically necessary as opposed to the quicker procudure of the doctor giving one last tug and having a live birth?

The purpose of this procedure is precisely to end life before it exits the birth canal at which time it would be considered murder, at least for now. As society plummets down the slippery slope, there are already citizens calling for post birth abortion.

Nope. Because it doesn't exist. (I know that was a rhetorical question.) The fact that PBA ever survived congressional or judicial scrutiny at all is an indication of blatant political bias, because it sure as he** doesn't survive medical scrutiny.

Allow me to state the obvious - there is no medical situation where a partial birth abortion is ever necessary to save the health or life of the mother.

Better yet, it's not ever an emergency procedure either, because labor-inducing drugs are taken hours before. Think about it - the doctor prepares the mother for BIRTH. So obviously, she can survive birth at that time.

And if the mother can survive birth at that time, WHY KILL THE BABY AS HE'S BEING BORN? Killing the baby changes nothing for the mother, besides making her child dead.

Common sense tells us there is no medical reason to willfully kill the baby. It's about convenience and/or deception.