Compare this "the feet, legs and buttocks are delivered, then the skull is crushed"; with this (from my local newspaper): "it involves partially extracting a fetus, legs first, through the birth canal, piercing the skull and draining its contents." Can't see that the latter description is any less distasteful than the first. I suppose it might have been written with that in mind, but it doesn't work.

If a fetus is viable, it's a baby. If you kill it, you're killing a baby. Doesn't make a lot of difference if you say you are crushing its skull or piercing the skull and draining the contents.

If you think all abortion is a form of murder, this is just an extreme and dramatic example. But if you think that abortion is not murder, (arguing that a foetus is not capable of living outside the mother and therefore doesn't have an independent life and so forth), this is something different, as several "pro-choice" people on this thread have said. Directly killing a baby who is capable of living independently is infanticide.

Of course there have been lots of societies where infanticide has been legal under certain circumstances, and there still are a few. And legal or not, it happens often enough. And there are people who would wish to make it legal more widely. But it's a different argument.

And please, don't lets drop into being smart-assed and sarcastic, though it's verey easy, and sometimes very tempting. There are real people in this discussion, and real people aren't wooden Aunt Sallies who can't be hurt.