From the editors of National Review Online:
“Partial-birth abortions are not really worse than other methods of late-term abortion. There is indeed something irrational about concluding that a method [I would add ‘the morality’] of killing a seven-month-old fetus should depend on the location of his foot. But just who is responsible for making a fetish of location in the first place? It is the Supreme Court itself that has declared — with no support in the Constitution — that what distinguishes a fetus with no claim to legal protection from an infant with such a claim is whether it is in the womb.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–>
<!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–>National Review editors, “Partial Victory”; available from http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzMxZWQ0ZGM1NjdjYmZlZDBiYjRlMDc3NzAxOGU2M2Y; Internet; accessed 19 April 2007.
Thinking to Believe 
April 20, 2007 at 6:30 am
There’s something contradictory about wanting mothers to see pictures of their unborn children, but then wanting to ban partial birth abortion.
Shouldn’t pro-lifers want to ban all late-term abortions EXCEPT partial birth? That way, everyone can see the truth of what’s going on.
The PBA ban was good as politics, not as policy. The hope was that the SCOTUS would keep overturning the ban, and Congress (and the states) could keep passing it. It was a great wedge issue, and now it’s gone.
LikeLike
April 20, 2007 at 8:20 am
Your argument makes no sense. Anyone can see what abortion does by going to the web. There’s plenty of pictures of aborted babies. We don’t need partial birth abortions to accomplish that. Besides, the only person who sees the partially born baby being aborted is the doctor and attending nurses. The mother doesn’t see it.
Why would people hope that the ban keeps getting overturned? The ban was written and passed because both Democrats (who are mostly pro-abortion) and Republicans together agreed that the procedure is hardly distinguishable from infanticide. It’s a partial moral victory for the unborn. Did you ever stop to think that people actually care about the unborn?
LikeLike
April 20, 2007 at 10:15 am
I agree with Jason, your argument makes no sense at all. The reason anti-abortionist show pictures is to show that these unborn children are not things, but developed or developing individual humans. Showing pictures of an aborted fetus merely shows the brutality and inhumanity of such an act
LikeLike
April 20, 2007 at 10:15 am
Uh, that second anonymous was me BTW 🙂
LikeLike