You say much about your stance in the following. The fact that this
is, in my opinion, a more emotive topic than evangelism means that I
can understand your position. My one comment is posted below.
On 26 Feb, 20:31, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > ... I find it interesting
> >that you mention killing babies where the head is still in utero and
> >the body already expelled. Perhaps I can help? In the UK we would
> >ensure that such breach births are dealt with by caesarean operations.
> >Usually this works out fine for baby and mother.
>
> >So, what really is going on in the births that you mention? I presume
> >that you have a maximum age limit before termination is disallowed or
> >are you putting a pro-life/anti-abortion slant on it?
>
> They are called "partial birth abortions" and are legally performed in
> the U.S. The pro-death people claim it is "for the health of the mother"
> which is so blatantly stupid as to defy belief that anyone would claim
> this. How could it *possibly* be detrimental to the health of the
> mother for the baby to be pulled out another 3 inches without killing
> it?
How about if some idiot of a midwife or doctor did not realise that
the babies' head was too big to pass through the birth canal and that
the baby was already dead (it only takes three minutes of constriction
around the neck to kill or cause permanent brain injury). The
circumstances will explain why the action was taken. Do you have any
links to medical literature (and I don't mean anti-abortion
propaganda) which detail these deaths?
