http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_birth_abortion#Intact_D.26X_surgery
Under the Intact D&X method, the largest part of the fetus (the head) is reduced in diameter to allow vaginal passage. According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements.[7] First, the cervix is dilated. Second, the fetus is positioned for a footling breech. Third, the fetus is partially pulled out, starting with the feet, as far as the neck. Fourth, the brain and material inside the skull is evacuated, so that a dead but otherwise intact fetus can be delivered via the vagina.
Usually, preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as pitocin, a synthetic form of oxytocin, are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus' leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[8] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (Pub.L. 108-105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531[1], PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls partial-birth abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the term "partial-birth abortion" in the act pertains to a procedure that is medically called intact dilation and extraction.[2] Under this law, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act#.22Partial-birth_abortion.22_defined_by_law
"Partial-birth abortion" defined by law
Since it was first coined in 1995 by pro-life congressman Charles T. Canady, the term "partial birth abortion" has been used in numerous state and federal bills and laws, although the legal definition of the term is not always the same. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act defines "partial-birth abortion" as follows:
“ An abortion in which 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; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531) ”
In the 2000 Supreme Court case of Stenberg v. Carhart, a Nebraska law banning "partial-birth abortion" was ruled unconstitutional, in part because the language defining "partial-birth abortion" was deemed vague.[8] In 2006, the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart found that the 2003 act "departs in material ways" from the Nebraska law and that it pertains only to a specific abortion procedure, intact dilation and extraction.[2] Some commentators have noted that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act's language was carefully crafted to take into account previous rulings.[9] Although in most cases the procedure legally defined as "partial birth abortion" would be medically defined as "intact dilation and extraction", these overlapping terms do not always coincide. For example, the IDX procedure may be used to remove a deceased fetus (e.g. due to a miscarriage or feticide) that is developed enough to require dilation of the cervix for its extraction.[10] Removing a dead fetus does not meet the federal legal definition of "partial-birth abortion," which specifies that partial live delivery must precede "the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus."[11] Additionally, a doctor may extract a fetus past the navel and then "disarticulate at the neck", which could fall within the terms of the statute even though it would not result in an intact body and therefore would not be an intact dilation and extraction.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act#Effect
Effect
A 2007 article in The Boston Globe reported that, in response to this statute, many abortion providers had adopted the practice of injecting the fetus with lethal drugs before all late-term abortions. Even though these providers do not perform intact dilation and extraction procedures, they feel the broad wording of the ban compels them "to do all they can to protect themselves and their staff from the possibility of being accused."[28]
Pro-life is a false term, by definition.
Since I feel it's up to a woman what the hell she does with her body (and since anything she does to herself or her faetus is all the same), does that make me pro-death?
I just have to read these bloody forums to realise that there's obviously not enough abortions happening on this bloody planet.
Originally posted by shavixmirA baby has a body too, the have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" IT'S MURDER FOR PITY'S SAKE!!! What if you had been aborted? Then you couldn't have been writing the things you do, couldn't had no fun.
Pro-life is a false term, by definition.
Since I feel it's up to a woman what the hell she does with her body (and since anything she does to herself or her faetus is all the same), does that make me pro-death?
I just have to read these bloody forums to realise that there's obviously not enough abortions happening on this bloody planet.
Originally posted by daniel58If he was aborted I guess he wouldn't really care, since he wouldn't exist.
A baby has a body too, the have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" IT'S MURDER FOR PITY'S SAKE!!! What if you had been aborted? Then you couldn't have been writing the things you do, couldn't had no fun.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra-and, if ‘he’ was aborted, at least at an early stage, ‘he’ wouldn’t have ever existed as a conscious entity so that killing ‘him’ would be like killing any none-conscious entity such as killing a single human skin cell.
If he was aborted I guess he wouldn't really care, since he wouldn't exist.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThat's what the problem is with people that are "pro-death" or pro-abortion" or whatever you want to call them, they don't realize that it IS a child just not grown-up yet, so if I gave you your future wife (or whatever) in a pot of soil and told you to water the plant every day even though it doesn't look human it will one day, and how do you know when it looks "human-enough"? Even though you shouldn't kill it in the first place.
-and, if ‘he’ was aborted, at least at an early stage, ‘he’ wouldn’t have ever existed as a conscious entity so that killing ‘him’ would be like killing any none-conscious entity such as killing a single human skin cell.
Originally posted by daniel58I just think the lives and the quality of life of those already living is more important than potential lives. Are couples who have less than the maximum number of possible children also murderers? In the end, it comes down to the arbitrary definition of "human" - and I'm sure you will claim that a human gets a soul once a sperm and egg cell fuse. However, you cannot support that statement with any evidence since there is no evidence for the existence of the soul, therefore it's irrelevant and any boundary between human and non-human will be arbitrary.
That's what the problem is with people that are "pro-death" or pro-abortion" or whatever you want to call them, they don't realize that it IS a child just not grown-up yet, so if I gave you your future wife (or whatever) in a pot of soil and told you to water the plant every day even though it doesn't look human it will one day, and how do you know when it looks "human-enough"? Even though you shouldn't kill it in the first place.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIs there evidence for the existence of God? "Human and non-human", like animals?
I just think the lives and the quality of life of those already living is more important than potential lives. Are couples who have less than the maximum number of possible children also murderers? In the end, it comes down to the arbitrary definition of "human" - and I'm sure you will claim that a human gets a soul once a sperm and egg cell fuse. Howev ...[text shortened]... l, therefore it's irrelevant and any boundary between human and non-human will be arbitrary.