[Rinoa]

At that point, the only question is whether inducing birth and so on is more dangerous to the mother than would be the abortion. If giving birth and adopting is less harmful, then it only makes sense to have the mother do so

I wasn't debating against a normal abortion. I was making a case against partial birth abortion, in which case they already have to induce labor. The abortion has the same amount of strain on the mother as simply giving birth, and in some cases more because the baby sits in the birth canal while the doctor 'takes care of it'

-- and I do not believe that women have abortions in the third trimester solely because they feel like it.

Maybe not all women do it simply because they do not feel like having a baby, but I guarantee that some of the women that get these abortions just had a hard time making up their mind in the first two trimesters. Also, would you say that they should be allowed a partial birth abortion without a medical reason?

There is a consideration that makes the abortion necessary for that woman, which is probably a medical one. At any rate, the goal of having the woman do the reasonable thing should be accomplished through education, not legislation.

I've never actually heard of a single medical condition in which partial birth was necessary and that the mother was likely to be harmed because of it.
And when it's human lives on the line, legislation is necessary. You do not have the right to deny something life simply because you want it out of your body. Take it out, and let it have the chance to live.

Yeah, that's gross and stuff. Let me know when you're finished.

Many people that are 'for' this process don't understand exactly what it is that occurs during a partial birth. Describing it in specific terms is the best way to promote that understanding. I wasn't trying to be gross.

I never said abortion didn't kill the baby. Abortion clearly kills the baby. The question is, does the baby have an inherent right to live? The answer is, and remains: Not until it is no longer parasitizing the mother. Saying "But it will all be over soon" doesn't change that -- it is akin to telling a woman who is being raped to just lie still, because it will all be over soon. Until the child is actually breathing on its own, it is not an individual: it is a parasite, and it does not have inherent rights.

The symantecs of fetus vs. baby were being questioned. To word the question better, How is it not a baby that is being killed? If it has the ability to live on its own(which I've proven it does) why do we need to stop it from doing so? What advantage does it give the mother?

As for the whole leaving the baby alive while finishing the birthing process...Completely different from finishing rape. If she needs the baby out, she can have it removed(and the 'parasite' stopped) without killing it. That's like killing the rapist to get him out. If there was any other way to stop him, shouldn't that be tried first?
During partial birth labor has already been induced, she has to push the baby out regardless of whether or not it is still alive. It remaining alive does not stress her body any more than pushing it out dead. In fact, the baby remains in the canal longer if it is aborted in this manner because the doctor has to hold it there in order to kill it. The only thing that is actually affected by partial birth is the life of the child. The baby is out of her in the same time either way.

Also, if the issue is that the baby is taking from her body, and she needs the nutrients, why not just cut the unbilical cord? That comes out before the neck does, and stops the baby from relying on her. Effectively ridding her of the parasite quicker.