Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (178066)	11/16/2003 9:53:50 AM
From: brian1501	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576889

Even if the the life of the mother is in question? I'm not a doctor, but do you really think there is ever a time when the life of the mother would be in danger if there was not a partial birth abortion? Why wouldn't you just do a C-section and keep the baby alive with our technology? I see no difference in the partial birth procedure and doing a C-Section except they kill the baby. The only reason is you don't want the baby. It's a barbaric procedure, plain and simple. Brian

To: Alighieri who wrote (178066)	11/16/2003 11:43:33 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576889

Even if the the life of the mother is in question? It is important to consider it in context. First, a definition from the Louisiana Partial Birth Abortion law might be useful (this is presented as typical): (1) Partial birth abortion is the performance of a procedure on a female by a licensed physician or any other person whereby a living fetus or infant is partially delivered or removed from the female's uterus by vaginal means and with specific intent to kill or do great bodily harm is then killed prior to complete delivery or removal. This law is, of course, obsoleted by the Supremacy Clause. In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell presented his paper on this procedure at a Risk Management Seminar of the National Abortion Federation. He personally claims to have done over 700 himself (Interview with Dr. Martin Haskell, AMA News, 1993), and points out that some 80% are "purely elective." In a personal conversation with Fr. Frank Pavone, Dr. Haskell explained that "elective" does not mean that the woman chooses the procedure because of a medical necessity, but rather chooses it because she wants an abortion. He admitted to Fr. Frank that there does not seem to be any medical reason for this procedure. There are in fact absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother (Dr. Pamela Smith, Senate Hearing Record, p.82: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Medical Testimony). priestsforlife.org