I have noticed a number of you seem to be under the impression that a "partial birth abortion", is the killing of a fetus in the act of becoming an otherwise viable baby.<br><br>I agree that such a thing would be absolutely inexcusable. If the child was being born, and there would be no serious harm possible to the mother, I can imagine no reason to terminate. At that point, the doctor could simply spirit the live baby away, and the mother would (perhaps) be none the wiser. I can't say that such a thing has never taken place, monstrous as it is, it probably has happened. That is not what a "partial birth abortion" is, however. It is a method-dependent definition, not a time-dependent one.
<br><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction</a><br><br>It is still a terrible thing to contemplate, but at it is usually performed between the 21st and 24th week of gestation, there is no chance the fetus could survive. At that point, I would say the decision should be solely the mothers, and that we (we being everyone but the mother) have no right to interfere.
<br><br>All this law really says, is that the fetus must be killed entirely within the womb, it says nothing about timing.<br><br>I think the court made a serious mistake, and I think this mis-understanding is largely to blame.
<br><br>Disappointed,<br>Anon<br>