No, the remainder of the paper goes on to quote the very post I made of the Congressional Statements in the Partial Birth Abortion Act, which shows that they got their data and conclusions from the same source as this very paper I posted in the prior post. Thus, I have reconciled Congressses (you know, as Yoss calls, the fanatics) position with evidence provided by gynecologists.

But keep ignoring these facts.

Furthermore, the study you quote is comparing Intact Dilation and Extraction with Dilation and Evacuation. And it is only conducted in one hospital. The studies quoted in the Womens Health Collaborative cover larger populations across locations, and across the board concluded what Congress also concluded.

Again, I am curious how it is that you have any idea what gusto I've shown? I guess some people are convinced by the trick? He proved me wrong? Oh, no - I'm ignoring him...I'm sure I could respond to his points convincingly if I cared to...

Anyway, since you are reading the posts, you should have noticed that it also included a description of "non-intact" D&X, in which the fetus is dismembered before being removed. You'd better read this quickly - I made a post regarding abortion, so I'm sure it will only last a few minutes. Note that no one is saying the method is not barbaric, only less so.

is this the equivalent of being able to make fun of somebody right in front of them without them knowing?

tmos, so when a partisan congress speaks, are they like the pope speaking ex cathedra?

As usual, you ignored the post I made in response to it, but we have all come to expect that of you. You bring little if anything to the table Ron.

Hey give him a break TMOS, he uses latin in his posts!!!

I understand the distinction, comrade. Thats not what you said. You said the procedure doesn't exist, certainly implying under colloquial or any other name. You just weren't expecting to be called on it. Is there a medical procedure called "open heart surgery"?

It is what I said.

Good analogy Swim

If that was the answer to the question - I've got another one - what was the viable baby just a few seconds, a few minutes, a few hours prior to 'viability'? Was the baby not a baby at all, just a soulless entity or is there a possibility, even in your mind, that the baby was able to think and feel prior to achieving your definition of viability?

it was latin, this is true, but i specifically used what i did because what i know of tmos' background.

tmos, of course you don't think that people who disagree with your passionate opinions offer nothing, but at least privately accept that a partisan congress isn't saying something infallible in their congressional record.

Wow X you hit the nail on the head here, because even before it is able to survive outside the womb, it can respond to stimuli. To me that is viable. Abortion, no matter what the means, is murder. IMO

a non-viable, non-person capable of constitutional protection.

I agree with everything except that the killing of the unborn is always murder. Because of the campaign of misinformation that the anti-life agenda of NOW, NARAL, and other radical left groups have propagated, I think the moral culpability for those having the abortion can be significantly diminished.

I know that if a woman is raped, I consider it ok, but women that use abortion as birth control, I detest.