Posted on 08/02/2003 10:39:40 PM PDT by Uncle Bill
That would be my desire, but it looks to me that the definition of "Partial Birth Abortion" in the bill still allows for PBA's if they don't violate the two criteria of 1531. The standing question is: Is it possible to do a PBA without exposing the navel? If yes, then the bill is worthless. If no, then it's a great bill that is a step in the right direction.
This PBA legislation deals only with D & X's, that is dilation and extraction, the baby is partially extracted whole (the head of the baby is delivered through the birth canal) so that scissors and suction can remove the brains, thus killing the baby - "intact extraction, fetal skull decompression, removal," as the originator put it.
This is one step toward the restoration of Constitutional rights for the unborn. It is a good and rational first step. But it is, admittedly, only a first step.
Is a baby not walking because it has only taken one step? Or will you praise him/her and encourage him/her to keep going? I submit that a first step is a good indication that the baby will be running, jumping, and skipping soon, Lord willing.
I never said they were. WW's comment is that D&X's are the most gruesome of any abortion procedure. I was refuting that.
This is one step toward the restoration of Constitutional rights for the unborn. It is a good and rational first step. But it is, admittedly, only a first step.
Do you know that for a fact? That's the question that's still unanswered from anyone on this thread. Can you still do a D&X without exposing the navel? If no, that's great! If yes, the bill is absolutely worthless.
Limiting access is another way to win on this issue, working at the local level, educating young people on the health hazards and moral hazards of killing the unborn, making those that perform abortions feel professionally lower than a garbage collector.
They're already there. Personally, I want to make them feel lower than lawyers, but I realize you can only accomplish so much via incremental steps. ;-)
I begin to wonder what truly motivates these people. Do they actually care about the unborn or is it just another tool for them to use in their vendetta against the President and Conservative Americans who refuse to grant their narrow views legitimacy?
Considering that Mercuria’s choice for the last Presidential election, buchanan, dropped any pretense to a pro-life plank, I find these sudden concerns for the welfare of the unborn disingenuous at the least.
If these people are really interested in protecting the unborn, why do the fabricate lies to try and turn pro-life voters against the only pro-life candidate running in 2004? This just demonstrates how vigilant voters are going to have to be this next election; it isn’t just the Democrats working very hard at defeating our President.
I begin to wonder what truly motivates these people. Do they actually care about the unborn or is it just another tool for them to use in their vendetta against the President and Conservative Americans who refuse to grant their narrow views legitimacy?
Considering that Mercuria’s choice for the last Presidential election, buchanan, dropped any pretense to a pro-life plank, I find these sudden concerns for the welfare of the unborn disingenuous at the least.
If these people are really interested in protecting the unborn, why do the fabricate lies to try and turn pro-life voters against the only pro-life candidate running in 2004? This just demonstrates how vigilant voters are going to have to be this next election; it isn’t just the Democrats working very hard at defeating our President.
I begin to wonder what truly motivates these people. Do they actually care about the unborn or is it just another tool for them to use in their vendetta against the President and Conservative Americans who refuse to grant their narrow views legitimacy?
Considering that Mercuria’s choice for the last Presidential election, buchanan, dropped any pretense to a pro-life plank, I find these sudden concerns for the welfare of the unborn disingenuous at the least.
If these people are really interested in protecting the unborn, why do the fabricate lies to try and turn pro-life voters against the only pro-life candidate running in 2004? This just demonstrates how vigilant voters are going to have to be this next election; it isn’t just the Democrats working very hard at defeating our President.
`(A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until,
in the case of a head- first presentation, the entire fetal 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 for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus;
It is in the breech delivery that the naval comes into play. Most PBA's are performed with a head presentation. If a baby is delivered breech, for the purpose of killing it (PBA) that is when the naval must be outside the body of the mother. And yes, Sir Gawain, in a head-first delivery PBA, the entire head must be outside the mother's body in order for the scissors to be inserted in the base of the baby's skull.
_________________________________________________________________________
While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.
Reassessing proper placement of the closed scissors tip and safe elevation of the cervix, the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.
Just to confirm, you are saying that it is impossible to do a PBA without having the navel exposed. Correct?
If so, what is the medical reason the navel must be exposed?
Because in the case of a breech presentation the naval comes out before the abortionist can reach the base of the skull.
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.