Partial-birth abortion is a procedure in which a doctor partially delivers a baby, stabs it through the head with a pair of scissors, vacuums out its brain, and extracts its corpse from its mother’s birth canal. The procedure is usually performed on babies that would otherwise be viable, and has been described as never medically necessary by the American Medical Association and former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.
2006-08-04 08:03:56 · 6 answers · asked by John16 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I think partial-birth abortion is equal to murder and it should be illegal. I mean I'm all for women's rights, but the innocent child should have rights by that point to because it could have lived outside the mother's body. Besides that, there's no point to it because if the woman wanted an abortion, she should have had it much earlier on in the pregnancy. I just don't understand how anybody could do that to themselves and their baby, I don't know what this world is coming to. This is suppossed to be a civilized country where we don't promote murder.
2006-08-04 08:11:17 · answer #1 · answered by jellybean24 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Actually, you're misstating both the law and the medical facts.
Fewer than a fraction of a percent of what gets called "partial-birth abortions is actually performed the way you describe. And the vast majority (over 90%) are performed pre-viability.
The terminology you use comes from a pamphlet by non-medical folks who don't like the procedure, and use the most graphic (and inaccurate) words to get people to react emotionally. The instruments used as surgical instruments, and the procedure itself is already painless.
Also, it was Congress who made the arbitrary determination that the procedure is never medically necessary. The AMA, not to mention thousands of doctors, disagrees with those Congressional findings. But Congress doesn't seem to care about the facts, as long as they hit the hot-button political issues.
Also, the difference in "partial birth abortions" (which have nothing to do with partial birth) and other abortions is exactly where and how the fetus is positioned during the surgical procedure. The difference is because there are times when it is not safe to insert the surgical instruments into the mother's womb and instead it's better to expose the cranial sac (it's generally not formed into a skull yet) before performing the procedure. That's one of the many reasons why the Congressional findings are just flat wrong.
Not to mention, anesthesia is pointless because it's an instant painless termination. Anesthesia can't help diminish the pain when the brain-stem is already severed.
Finally, under the Constitution, the federal government is one of limited enumerated powers. Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government any authority to regulate medical practices. Which is why every federal court that has reviewed the prior federal laws in this area have struck them down as outside the scope of Congressional authority.
2006-08-04 09:28:42 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think that's a loaded but none the less fair question. At this writing no pro-abortion cheerleader has come on to give an answer because if he or she does say "yes" give the baby a painkiller to relieve him or her of the trauma of this nightmare procedure than they are admitting that the fetus is a person and deserving of at least some legal rights.
If they say "No" than they are just simply heartless.
So the pro-abortion cheerleaders do what they do best. They turn away from the uncomfortable truth and pretend its not there. That's why they don't like to see pictures of aborted fetuses in the mail because they are confronted with a truth they wish to hide from.
I say do one partial birth abortion on TV and let people see what they are silently giving their approval of. That will put an end to it fast.
2006-08-04 08:47:09 · answer #3 · answered by Julio W 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Tell me something. Do you think they would actually be that sane to give the baby an anesthetic if their whole procedure is sick and twisted? In genral the docters that preform that either have a very strong stomache, or no heart at all. What do you think?
2006-08-04 13:07:35 · answer #4 · answered by DancingBarefoot 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
federal law should be queit, ten commandments, period, that way everyone can know what they are.
Of course now we have ten books of one thousand pages of laws, so can ignorance now be an excuse?
2006-08-04 09:24:51 · answer #5 · answered by eg_ansel 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Maybe that should've happened to you. OOH!!!! can I do it now?!?!!!
2006-08-04 08:08:32 · answer #6 · answered by evillyn 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋