|Originally posted by Greaseball
The problem is, where do you draw the line? When is it its own person? Apparently not when it's a viable fetus (child) with the head out...when the rest of the body is out? When the cord is cut? What if the baby shot out so fast the doctor couldn't perform the evacuation...would he then suck out the skull of the whole baby in front of him?
My personal favorite part is when Senator Boxer says: "I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born--and there is no such thing as partial-birth--the baby belongs to your family and has the rights."
Also, to the lack of health of the mother clause. Dh informed me (so no I have no link or proof, but I'll be checking now.) that the reason the Republicans declined to include this was that it was not a clause intended to prevent a mother from dying-- it included mental health, etc. as an option for aborting via this method.
Regardless, there are other methods that are more humane that can be used besides this one. Technically, this law would not even ban this procedure if the child were first administered some heart stopping medication (as Marlena mentioned), since the baby would no longer be alive when it was delivered.
And I have yet to hear an explanation as to how it helps the health of a mother to suck out a baby's brain after she has already gone through the birth process. Anyone?