Posted on 08/12/2007 11:31:49 AM PDT by wagglebee
How are abortion clinics protecting themselves against charges under the partial-birth abortion ban?
By ensuring unborn babies are dead by injecting them first with lethal drugs before aborting them.
The practice has been adopted by many abortion providers across the U.S. in the wake of the Supreme Court decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, reported the Boston Globe.
The banned abortion procedure is particularly grisly. It requires the abortion doctor to partially deliver a live baby, then kill it by inserting scissors into the base of its head and using a suctioning machine to remove its brain.
Other procedures, employed in earlier-term pregnancies, kill the unborn child in the womb and the doctor removes the body parts afterward. But even with this procedure, live births have occurred.
The federal ban, upheld in August, does not specify the age of the baby and mandates a two-year prison sentence for violations.
In order to avoid any chance of a live birth and prosecution, three major Harvard-affiliated hospitals – Massachusetts General, Brigham and Women's, and Beth Israel Deaconess – have made lethal injections in the womb a standard operating procedure for abortions at 20 weeks gestation or later.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
The title Dr is a pretty loose term here...
.
“The banned abortion procedure is particularly grisly. It requires the abortion doctor to partially deliver a live baby, then kill it by inserting scissors into the base of its head and using a suctioning machine to remove its brain.”
It appears that the folks from Sodom and Ghomorah were more compassionate, yet they got zapped. Imagine what this country can look forward to. Imagine what will happen to the lawmakers that approve of this slaughter.
I was hoping they gave the “mothers” trying to get abortions the lethal injection...if only.
Why don’t we hope that “Someday this injection will be given to the doctor that attempts to kill the unborn.” We can only dream.
Does it surprise anyone that there is a legal way around anything.
You are unusual in your consistency.
It is very odd to me that those who want to make abortion illegal are so reluctant to specify punishment for the mother who is trying to procure the abortion. If one truly believes abortion is murder, the mother is committing a criminal act exactly like the person who hires a contract killer to kill a target. There is no reason why she shouldn’t receive a long prison sentence for doing so.
It is this reluctance to punish the mother that makes me think that most people trying to make abortion illegal don’t really believe that it is equivalent to murder. They simply don’t feel that way in their gut.
I’m actually surprised that digoxin usage is a “new” procedure ,, I can’t imaging how dangerous it is for the “mother” to have a dying baby thrashing about with broken sharp leg and arm stumps... I guess I’ll never comprehend the “compassionate progressive” mind ..
It is simply M U R D E R, premeditated, in the first degree. It is time to convict these murderers who call them selves doctors of 1st degree murder. The clinics are also co-conspiritors in this grisly business.
Lethal injection, however is too good for these doctors - pith them.
You are correct. The mother should also be charged.
They will do anything to avoid the vicious wrath of feminazis.
Well couldn’t we see something like this coming? 20 weeks is roughly 5 months gestation. Might as well carry the baby to term, and put he/she up for adoption. Oh wait, that doesn’t fit the agenda.
I always thought the liberals were silly to put up such a fuss about the partial-birth abortion ban. That law is a diversion from confrontation over principles into a discussion about means. Which I think is a little like George Bernard Shaw’s quip to the lady who said she would consider sleeping with him for a million pounds but was insulted when he asked if she would spleep with him for ten pounds. He said “We’ve already established what you are. Now we’re haggling about price.”
Medical technology evolves quickly, as does our knowledge of what hormones and chemicals allow a pregnancy to progress successfully. We will find more and more ways to disrupt a pregnancy as we find out how to prevent miscarriages and stillbirths. Haggling about the means is a temporary distraction from the real point.
Personally I do not think abortion is murder. I think it is a tragic necessity in some cases, and I am content to leave it up the woman and her doctor. I think that abortion should be legal, with strenuous efforts made to educate both men and women about contraception, and teaching kids the value of waiting for sex, in hopes of reducing the demand for abortion. It would be as impossible to outlaw abortion as it has proven to be impossible to outlaw drug use.
Still, given the fact that abortion is making major inroads into the number of Liberals and Democrats that infest this country you may end up getting your wish.
After all, once we are down to a handful of women seeking abortions, it should be relatively easy to apply legal sanctions to them.
BTW, that does not mean in every case that either abortionists or certain women need to executed ~ that's an old fashioned way to do it ~ within a few years they're going to be able to slag out your mind and replace it with one better suited to a Great New Conservative Future!
You'll be very happy, I assure you.
“First do no harm.”
I see you have received your talking points from the left. Murder is murder. Double standards should not exist. Sure, there should be degrees of guilt based upon level of intent, circumstances, etc. Thus, if someone offs, say, an islamist who is shreiking for the death of an infidel, what punishment should he or she receive? Or, should he or she have a new constitutional right named after them?
If abortion is a necessity—and a woman's right—what makes it "tragic"? And if it is to be left up to a woman and her doctor, why make "strenuous efforts" to reduce the demand for abortion?
Our judicial masters have decreed that abortion is a woman's constitutional right. In that case, it is nobody's business whether a woman gets one abortion or a dozen. There is nothing tragic about it; the procedure has no more significance than getting one's hair done. Or so we are led to believe.
One more thing: We have not succeeded in eliminating murder, rape, or robbery. Is that an argument for making them legal too?
Check these out for the full grisly story:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html
http://www.abortionismurder.org/notconvinced.shtml
Back when this form of human sacrifice was still considered criminal, the law focused primarily on punishing the abortionist. See here.
The reaction to the PBA ban depicted here makes the ban appear more and more symbolic. Perhaps it's established a good constitutional precedent and changed a few minds, but it didn't stop a single abortion.
Democrats. The party of pro-death except in cases of first degree murderers.
Currently, ~96% of preemies greater than 28 weeks survive; 50% of those 24 weeks or more survive, and only 2% of those 22 weeks or more survive. I would bet that these statistics get better with advancements in technology, but even now, how can it not be murder when you abort a child with a 50% chance of survival outside the womb? I can see no justification. (I’m not saying that it’s OK when there’s a 2% chance).
I am one, in fact, who thinks the mother should get the harsher punishment. She initiates what I consider to be murder. When Mr. Smith contracts with Mr. Jones to kill Mr. Smith’s wife, does Mr. Smith get the lighter punishment simply because what Mr. Smith has had to endure to get rid of Mrs. Smith is “hard”? Nope. Mommy goes to jail, too.
Yes, I *know* analogies are faulty. Yes, I know there are some cases where abortion is not disguised form of birth control. Yes, I know there are some cases where others are exerting pressure, perhaps even force, on the mother to get the abortion. But, in general, a mommy who chooses that for her unborn child is no different than one who chooses it for someone else’s born child.
CNN is covering one man’s search for his sister-this hour.
His sister was one of many who were shipped off to institutions because they were disabled or slow and an embarrassment/inconvenience to their families.
This sounds like what Joe Kennedy, Sr. did to his daughter Rosemary. She suffered from very mild retardation, but her father was worried that she would become promiscuous and get pregnant (it seems that only the men in the Kennedy family are permitted to be serial philanderers), so he had her put in an institution where a lobotomy was performed on her.
Yes, it happened to a lot of people who disrupted the social
status of some families.
It also happened to people who just didn’t know any better though.
My uncle, born around 1934, was not not speaking clearly at the age of 2 1/2-3. That’s common for first born children since they don’t have siblings to talk with. Anyway, the doctor urged my grandmother to institutionalize him so “they could help him.” He went in a smiling, happy little boy, and came out a year or two later unable to speak or smile. It took years for her to get anything out of him. He was put in with adults.
All he would tell her is that the adults defecated on the floor.
Today, these social “problems” are removed through abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.
It was deplorable what was done then, but what is done now is indefensible.
Right. Back then, alot of people did not know what was going on. Today, noone can feign ignorance.
Awww. THanks. I hate sound bloodthirsty, but it’s just absolutely bizarre to me to that people are willing to overlook the woman getting the abortion. She is nothing more than a murderer in my opinion. I have no respect for a woman who can have an abortion and think that it’s in any way ok. Talk about forfeiting your soul - women are entrusted with the most delicate, helpless fragile and wonderful beings on the planet - the idea that some would kill them is a crime against nature and god and they should be reviled for it.
So you don’t see ANY difference between killing a fertilized egg and vacuuming out the skull of a full term baby? Help me understand why that would be OK with you, but an infant born at 5 months gestation all of a sudden has inalienable rights? Would it be OK to drop a cinder block on a preemie in the NICU if it was “approved by the mother and her doctor”?
These institutions need to lose their federal dollars.
No. The reason is the tendancy to see the mother as a victim - the mindset is much more driven by mercy than by vengeance. There is also the issue of political practicalness - support among the sheeple is weakened when you start targeting the mother with legal penalties.
Actually I wouldn’t expect execution, at least for the mother. Few murderers receive that sentence.
“Murder is murder. Double standards should not exist.”
That was exactly my point. Why don’t those who want to make abortion illegal advocate punishing the mother who requested the doctor to perform the abortion? If murder is murder, why doesn’t she deserve the same kind of sentence received by a woman who hires a contract killer to kill her husband? I conclude from the fact that the laws proposed to make abortion illegal DO NOT INCLUDE penalties for the mother that the proponents do not really believe that abortion is equivalent to murder. They are proposing special laws that excuse the person who procures the services of the murderer.
I believe that women make the choice to have an abortion with pain and reluctance. They live with regret—sometimes the fathers also live with regret. That’s why it’s a tragedy. I think that more people could be spared this suffering if all men and women were encouraged to think harder about the consequences of their behavior.
No one wants to be robbed, raped or murdered. We are all pretty much in favor of making those actions illegal. Even rapists, robbers and murderers don’t want to be robbed, raped or murdered. On the other hand, many women want to end their pregnancies. It does not really require a doctor and a clinic to accomplish this. Before abortion was legal, many abortions were performed. Many ended in the death of the mother. We would not reduce the number of abortions by making it illegal; we would merely create another underground economy of supply and demand like the illegal trade in drugs.
That’s my point. It didn’t stop a single abortion because it was not a principled stand.
I understand that “...the American pro-life movement has consistently considered the woman as the second victim of abortion.” That’s exactly what undermines their claim that abortion is murder. Why do they consider the woman as the second victim rather than the instigator? Are they saying that women are not responsible for their choices? That certainly does go back to the days when women were considered so incapable of rational thought that they weren’t allowed to vote.
I think it’s downright disrespectful of women to assume they are nothing more than “victims” when they make a choice to have an abortion.
I respect the consistency of your principles. If abortion is murder, there is really no need for special laws. There would only be a need for a law that says abortion is murder. Period. A person paying for an abortion would fall under the jurisdiction of the same laws that prohibit the hiring of a contract killer. The claim that the person was not of sound mind is already handled by existing criminal laws.
Enforcing it? That will be another matter altogether. I would hope that we wouldn’t resort to requiring all fertile women to report for pregnancy tests every month and monitor all pregnancies to make sure there were no abortions, the way the Ceausescu regime in Romania did.
http://www.lukesociety.org/news/fall2000romania.html
I respect your consistency, although I don’t share your opinion that abortion is equivalent to murder. I just don’t see the sense in claiming that it is, and then wanting to paint grown women as “victims” of abortionists.
My question is more, “what is the difference between vacuuming out the skull of a full term baby or injecting it with poison?” Because the result of the ban on partial birth abortions has apparently resulted in that question.
Personally, I see a HUGE difference between “killing” a fertilized egg and ending a pregnancy when the fetus is almost ready to survive independently of the mother. Such late abortions are rare, and often are performed due to lethal abnormalities of the fetus, such as extreme hydrocephalus. I think there is a possibility that a late term fetus feels pain, and that is something that should be taken into account. I also think that there should be grave reasons for ending a pregnancy that is far advanced.
“The reason is the tendancy to see the mother as a victim - the mindset is much more driven by mercy than by vengeance. There is also the issue of political practicalness - support among the sheeple is weakened when you start targeting the mother with legal penalties.”
You were right the second time—political practicality. I believe most people see it as a pretense of mercy dictated by political practicality. But it undermines the entire principle that abortion is murder.
I don't know who these people are that are reluctant to talk about it. Right now, this murder is legal, so there can be no punishment. I think the fact that our society condones this barbaric practice has given many women the belief that it is not murder.
Once we outlaw the practice, I think any woman that is caught trying to get or getting an abortion should be punished. I don't care if they are emotionally distraught over their pregnancy. Emotionally distraught people murder people all the time and it's no excuse for the crime they have committed.
What about setting fire to your neighbor's house?
When you deviate from general principles into particulars, there are so many particulars to consider.
I say this only to encourage you to think your way through all those details about how one human might kill another human ~ get back to you later.
Would they lie to us?
All we need is a ruling that says "Yup, you can abort but you can't maim or kill" and it's over!
You may be right about some women (and some men). But the pro-abortion movement would disagree with you. They would tell you that most women who abort suffer no such feelings. Indeed, you can find examples in the press of women who seem to take the entire decision with nonchalance. Some even seem proud of their decision.
I think that more people could be spared this suffering if all men and women were encouraged to think harder about the consequences of their behavior.
In contrast, pro-abortion activists think that more people could be spared this suffering if all men and women were encouraged to think that abortion is a basic human right without adverse consequences. According to this view, there is no reason anyone should feel pain, reluctance, or regret about exercising that right, any more than one would about exercising the rights of free speech, assembly, religion, etc.
The pro-abortion party would argue that the only reason anyone would regret the decision to abort is that hateful pro-lifers point the finger of indignation at people who are merely acting within their rights. The pro-abortion solution is to mount a strenuous effort to convince people that abortion is fine, that no one should feel bad about it, and that no one should criticize it.
No one wants to be robbed, raped or murdered. We are all pretty much in favor of making those actions illegal. Even rapists, robbers and murderers don’t want to be robbed, raped or murdered.
An interesting argument, but one that ultimately leads you nowhere. Even if a rapist would not want to be raped himself, that does not stop him from raping others. More to the point, a woman may not wish she had been aborted—nor would she wish to be killed now—but that does not stop her from aborting her own child. Evil, selfish, or unthinking people often do unto others that which they would not have done unto themselves—the Leaden Rule, we might call it.
You argued against making abortion illegal on the grounds that the law will not stop abortion. But the law cannot stop other crimes either. Nevertheless, we make laws against some acts because we believe them wrong, no matter how many people commit them. The laws deter some some from committing crime; the laws punish those who will not be deterred.
On the other hand, many women want to end their pregnancies. It does not really require a doctor and a clinic to accomplish this. Before abortion was legal, many abortions were performed. Many ended in the death of the mother. We would not reduce the number of abortions by making it illegal; we would merely create another underground economy of supply and demand like the illegal trade in drugs.
You use the word many three times in this paragraph. How many is "many"? Were there more or fewer abortions performed before abortion was made legal by the courts?
There are feticide statutes on the books.
If the lethal injection is not part of the abortion it could be argued.
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.
