- List All

  • Web   The Point


+ Theology/Religion + Culture + Marriage & Family + Politics + Academia + Human Rights
Christianity Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Religion Blogs - Blog Top Sites
Link With Us - Web Directory

« More details on two tragic stories | Main | A New Twist on Human Amusement... »

April 19, 2007

Bill Frist on Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

Former Senate majority leader and surgeon Dr. Bill Frist had this to say yesterday about the Supreme Court's recent ruling upholding the ban on partial birth abortions:

Today's ruling reaffirms that human life is precious and that we cannot tolerate a procedure that puts into question our medical ethics. It represent yet another important step in our endeavor to restore a culture of life....

The practice of brutalizing a tiny baby the very moment she is ready to emerge into the world is an affront to my whole medical experience ... and to the decency of a civilized society. We respect human life far too much to let it be ravaged in such an inhumane way.

Amen, Dr. Frist. And thank you, thank you to the Supreme Court justices who made this life-affirming decision. My prayer is that I will live long enough to see future court rulings that will end all abortions-on-demand in this nation. 

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bill Frist on Partial-Birth Abortion Ban:



For all the posters here about the Supreme Court's decision this week, I'm wondering why you've settled on 'partial birth abortion' as your description of the medical procedure? It politicizes the method and gets people all hot and bothered, when 'dilation and evacuation' is actually a more accurate term. After all, in some cases, the fetus is already dead; one is not aborting, but removing - this ruling now makes it illegal to remove a dead fetus from a womb through any procedure besides labor, and that upsets me quite a bit. Not to mention that most late-term procedures are done out of medical necessity instead of callous intent. Not looking to start a fight - just curious about choice of words.

Diane Singer

Shakespeare once wrote that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." The opposite is also true: regardless of what you call this procedure, it is still (in most cases) a violent and painful method of murdering an infant by pulling most of its body from the womb feet first, puncturing the skull with a sharp instrument, and sucking out its brains. The pro-abortionists want to play language games to pretty up what they are doing (it's a 'fetus' not a 'baby,' for instance), but murder -- by any other name -- is still murder.

Yes, babies die in the womb, and their remains must be removed. How doctors and patients choose to do so is not the issue. It's when this procedure is used against living babies that it becomes murder.

The comments to this entry are closed.