Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Milwaukee_Guy

From what I remember, all the testimony in the lower court cases showed that there would NEVER be a situation where a partial birth abortion would be needed to save the mother.


129 posted on 04/18/2007 7:43:14 AM PDT by deputac (NYPD & FDNY: The Other Twin Towers of New York)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]


To: deputac

A simple c-section would take care of any medical problems a mother might be having at that late stage in pregnancy—babies are capable of surviving outside the womb now at what? 22-24 weeks?? Why murder a baby to supposedly “save” a mother, when BOTH could be saved?? Even if the mother didn’t want to keep the child, at least the child would be ALIVE to put up for adoption or fostering or whatever!

PBA is NEVER necessary. NEVER.


139 posted on 04/18/2007 7:46:26 AM PDT by pillut48 (CJ in TX --Bible Thumper and Proud! RUN, FRED, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies ]

To: deputac; Milwaukee_Guy
From what I remember, all the testimony in the lower court cases showed that there would NEVER be a situation where a partial birth abortion would be needed to save the mother.

You're correct. There's not a single health problem this procedure "cures" that couldn't be treated with a Caesarean section or a vaginal birth.

Truly sick, especially when you consider a lot of these kids are suffering from Down's Syndrome or cleft palate.

445 posted on 04/18/2007 10:01:12 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (A pacifist sees no distinction between the arsonist and the fireman--Freeper ccmay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson