Btw, I have testified before my state legislature on this topic, I am quite familiar with the information. As you know, I am board certified in this specialty. The supposed “balanced argument” presented here does not dispute any of the facts I have given you. It just falsely appeals to uninformed emotions. The article claims the need for this law and procedure in this case was to “end the child’s suffering”. But a nonviable child is not suffering in utero. Also, if that is the tack being taken, the procedure is far more violent and painful of an end than delivery with natural causes thereafter.
This example simply says how a person who has the procedure has justified it to herself. No facts.