I don't agree with partial-birth abortion, I consider it brutal and believe it should not be legal.Imagine the mental gymnastics it takes to hold this kind of position. The writer believes partial-birth abortion exists and thinks it is a brutal procedure which shouldn't be legal yet doesn't believe the procedure involves puncturing the child's skull and removing her brains.
However, I don't believe for an instant that the fetus is cut open at the neck so that the brain can be sucked out. What would be the point? Those are "facts" that are presented for the sole purpose of sensationalism, not truth. And gullible, idealistic young people (and older people) are the pawns in this plan. The procedure destroys the fetus; there is no life left. The brain, whatever there is there, is not active.
The writer also doesn't understand what the point of removing the brains out would be. Let's try to think about this for a second. The writer believes that partially-born children are killed through partial-birth abortion. How do you think he or she thinks the children get killed? I'm having a hard time coming up with how this individual thinks the child dies. Does she think the child dies while the abortionist is pulling most of the child out? How does he or she imagine the head is delivered? How does the procedure "destroy the fetus" in his or her mind?
This situation reminds me of an earlier situation awhile ago when a friend of mine told me he had a co-worker who didn't believe partial-birth abortion existed. I guess he thought it was all completely made up. If I recall correctly, I e-mailed my friend some of the court transcripts of abortionists describing how they perform partial-birth abortion and Martin Haskell's instructional paper describing how he performs partial-birth abortions which my friend then passed on to his co-worker. The response from his co-worker was something like this, "Thanks, but I'm doing my own research and that's not what I'm looking for."