Here is how the law defines partial birth abortion:
“An abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child’s body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child’s skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child’s brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant.”
Here is what Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says about partial birth abortion:
“This is about a procedure that any parent would want her daughter to have access to if she needed it. And to frame it as an abortion issue is doing a disservice to medicine and to our young women and our country. So I hope we can get the focus back on the fact that this Supreme Court is deciding what medical procedures are necessary for child-bearing women.”
The scary thing about this statement is that I get the feeling that Pelosi actually believes it. It doesn’t make her any less culpable for her views. It just means that she is that much farther down the road of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).
Nevertheless, I am amazed that more people cannot see how morally retrograde it is to defend the legalization of partial birth abortion. How can you totally overlook the humanity of the baby in the womb (in this case partially out of the womb) and claim that the abortion issue is merely a “women’s health” issue?
As long as there are people who think like Nancy Pelosi (and there are many), the pro-life battle to win hearts and mind goes on. I intend to be a part of it, and I hope you will too.
Eric M Schumacher
â€œThis is about a procedure that any parent would want her daughter to have access to if she needed it.”
But, would that parent want that procedure to have access to their grandchild?
I am starting to believe that this person is a NUT-JOB… The area that she is elected in must not have clear thinking people in it…
thank you denny for your faithfulness to call attention to such difficult issues and to demand that we as Christians be diligent in the crusade for life! May God bless your efforts. Send my love to your girls. Luf Rachel
All I have to say is that is a cool picture of her…..SIKE!!!
San Fran Nan is hot!!!!
April 24th, 2007 at 11:24 am
All I have to say is that is a cool picture of herâ€¦..SIKE!!!”
Classy AND Christ-like. Good job.
I am glad that this is such a clear cut issue for so many people, because it sure isn’t for me.
There are an awful lot of stories coming out about different circumstances where a mother’s life was in danger, or there was little to no hope of the child surviving (if Denny gives the okay, I will post them). What’s the correct decision then? And without a provision for the life or health of the mother, what might they do then?
I am 100% against abortion when it is used for birth control. But the thought popped into my head, “how many people carry a child to 7 months, and THEN decide that they don’t want the responsibility?”
Serious questions. Anyone have serious answers?
Eric M Schumacher
(A) I’d certainly be interested in hearing ALL of your “awful lot” of stories in which a mother’s life was in danger an a partial-birth abortion was the only means of her surviving.
(B) What does the number of situations in which a mother carrying a child for 7 months and then deciding she doesn’t want the responsibility have to do with the morality of partial-birth abortion? If only one person in the nation wanted to sexually molest a child, we wouldn’t say, “Oh, its not too many, let’s keep it legal.”
And again, PLEASE, give us the awful lot of stories coming out (and sources). That is a serious question.
I find it ironic that you are playing the classy and Christ-like card. Secondly, I thought you were happy about the partial birth abortion ban being upheld last week. I’m confused.
You know I like it when you post, mainly because you have a different point of view, but this time you’re just being silly. Everyone knows that only a small portion of abortions are directly related to the health of the mother. Plus, Pelosi wasn’t talking about those situations when she made her assinine statement. I’m a parent, and I don’t want my kids to have access to this proceedure unless under the most extreme circumstances. Pelosi’s statement is simply irresponsible.
And, yeah, it’s a bit goofy reading you get on to somebody for making fun of her picture. It’s a funny picture, and recognizing that shouldn’t be ammunition for you to bring somebody’s Christlike-ness into question. Come on, Paul.
You stay classy!
allow me first to pat you on the head for your cute remark.
While I am happy about the ban, in light of articles I’ve seen, I wonder about the morality of not including provisions for the life and/or health of the mother.
Which brings me to Eric, who misses the point by a mile. (and by the way, I’m serious about waiting for Denny’s permission here. It’s one thing to offer counterpoint to what is often a one sided discussion. It’s another thing to load down his server with articles that he might just delete anyway.)
It’s not a matter of numbers, it’s a matter of useage of the procedure. If it’s primarily a medical procedure (done for the life/health of the mother), then that’s a whole different argument than if it’s a “choice” issue. If it’s a choice issue, then yes, I am glad that the ban is in place. However, if it truly is used mostly as a procedure meant to keep a mother alive or mostly in one piece, then I think everyone needs to take a step back and give this pause.
Yes, I agree that abortion as birth control is downright evil. However, if it is done for health reasons, that’s a different ballgame. It’s better for a mother to have a second chance at giving birth than for a child to go through life without its mother.
I agree that the number of abortions done for medical need is indeed small compared to the overall number of abortions.
My question was how many final trimester abortions are being done out of convenience as opposed to those being done out of medical need. Common sense would say that at that point, the gap would be much, much, much smaller. I might be wrong. But I doubt it.
The bill does allow an exception for the life of the mother. Here’s the relevant portion:
“A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician’s conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.” –Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
Feel free to post your numerous examples. I think it would be most helpful if you could provide us with the percentage of partial birth abortions performed in the last year which were necessary in order to save the life of the mother.
so…you wait till the kid is ‘born’, but the head isnt out yet. then you kill it?
how lazy is that?!?!?! just give the kid up for adoption. you already are going through childbearing, pretty much. sheesh.
I should apologize for my comment it probly wasn’t very nice…I just meant it to be funny and not something that offends people…
You know, it amazes me really. I participate in some online debate sites — when God kills one person in the Old Testament(Uzzah) the atheists and many liberals there say God is “unforgiving”, “unjust” or declare that the act is “sickening”. When Muslim terrorists killed thousands of people on 9/11 they say “it was our fault” and excuse this terrorist act because they are “poor” and “confused”.
…but when doctors suck the brains out of a tiny human being during their first moments of fresh air? THAT is “ok” to them. We truly live in a barbaric nation.
I’ve been checking back periodically to read the stories about the circumstances where a woman’s life was in danger but have not yet seen any posted.
Maybe an interview I listened to with Caron Strong, from Operation Outcry, on the Mike Corley Show, can shed some light on this. One of the statistics she mentioned was that only 3% of ALL abortions are done for the life of the mother. She also said that in situations where a mother’s life is in danger and a partial birth abortion could be done, a c-section could also be done. She provided some other interesting information that was very good to shed light on the subject of abortion.
I’ve provided the link to Mike’s archive’s on OnePlace. If you want to hear for yourself, then listen to the “Where is God” interview on 04/20/07 – it’s free. The interview with Caron is about 20 minutes into the show.
Eric M Schumacher
I too am waiting for Paul’s “awful lot of stories coming out about different circumstances where a motherâ€™s life was in danger.”
Wow. A guy can’t move and unpack. Sheesh. Stories forthcoming.
All this time I thought patience was a virtue.
You’re letting me down on this one. Don’t fault the others on this board who expect to see you follow up your claim. You spoke up about something, and have yet to follow through. This thread has now been going on for a full week, and will soon be relegated to the back pages of Denny’s blog. When that happens everyone will lose interest and move on to the more recent postings. You know this, so don’t act like everyone on here is being impatient for no reason. We appreciate the fact that your life doesn’t stop just because of a silly blog, but when you claim that you have numerous stories to support your point, and all you’re waiting for is Denny’s approval to post them, you need to deliver. Denny gave you approval 6 days ago. Exactly how long does it take you to move?
Still no articles or stats or anything. I guess I’ll have to research some myself.