NationStates Jolt Archive

It's not hard to understand why abortion is such a hot-button issue. Some see it as an issue of personal freedom, others as an issue of life or death. Uncertainty about when human life begins only compounds the problem. But that's not what this thread is about.

What is hard to understand is why so many people specifically support partial-birth abortions. For those who don't know what differentiates partial-birth abortion from other abortion procedures:

Partial birth abortion is a common term for the Intact Dilation and Extraction (D&X) abortion procedure. In the partial birth abortion (D&X) procedure, a physician delivers a baby to the point where only the head remains inside the womb but then punctures the back of the skull and removes the brain before completing delivery.

In other words, partial-birth abortion is not killing a fetus, but a fully developed newborn child. There's no question whether the victim is viable outside the uterus or whether it's an individual human being, as with other abortions. Why would anyone support such a thing?

I support abortion, but that's just sick and wrong.

dilation and extraction procedures are only done to save a woman from death or from being permanently injured from childbirth.
they are also done to remove a dead fetus so that it does not rot in her womb and kill her with infection.

it's not done for personal choice.

unless by personal choice you mean deceiding between that and being cut open and having the fetus removed, which has a greater risk of infection and a longer hospital stay and recovery period is required.

dilation and extraction procedures are only done to save a woman from death or from being permanently injured from childbirth.
There's no evidence, though, that a partial birth abortion has ever been necessary to save the mother's life. It's ridiculous to claim that the doctor has to kill the baby while only the head is in the mother.

Dakini got it right: D&E is used when a) the mother's health is seriously in danger, b) the fetus is so deformed that to allow it to be born naturally would be cruel, c) (this is MOST OFTEN the case) the fetus is already dead.

if anybody here wants to use the "eeeew" factor to argue against D&E, i have some pictures to show them...they are pictures of women's bodies after they continued carrying dead fetuses, due to abortion bans in their countries. i guarantee you, no matter how "gross" you think D&E may be, my pictures are worse.

There's no evidence, though, that a partial birth abortion has ever been necessary to save the mother's life. It's ridiculous to claim that the doctor has to kill the baby while only the head is in the mother.

ok, so in the case of hydrocephalus, when the fetal skull is 50 cm in diameter, a woman can pass that through a 10 cm opening with no problem whatsoever. that's exactly it. a fetus with a skull of 50 cm isn't going to survive to gain consciousness either.
and you know, when they remove a dead fetus in this manner, it's not going to save a woman's life by removing a piece of rottign flesh. no, of course not...

you're quite misinformed.

don't worry, i used to think it was an elective procedure as well. however, it's not.

if anybody here wants to use the "eeeew" factor to argue against D&E, i have some pictures to show them...they are pictures of women's bodies after they continued carrying dead fetuses, due to abortion bans in their countries. i guarantee you, no matter how "gross" you think D&E may be, my pictures are worse.

not to sound morbid...

but i'm curious...

I didn't on the dead fetus, because I have no problem with that. If the fetus is dead, there's nothing wrong with the process. But if the child is alive it's barbaric to remove it's brain only inches from full birth.

There's no evidence, though, that a partial birth abortion has ever been necessary to save the mother's life. It's ridiculous to claim that the doctor has to kill the baby while only the head is in the mother.
wrong. over 3/4 of the D&E procedures done in the US are ruled by medical professionals to be necessary for protecting the mother's life or health. of the others, virtually every case was a dead fetus...so who cares how horrible it is for the fetus, if it's already dead?

I didn't on the dead fetus, because I have no problem with that. If the fetus is dead, there's nothing wrong with the process. But if the child is alive it's barbaric to remove it's brain only inches from full birth.

but it will kill or cripple a woman who tries to deliver it and often the fetus wouldn't survive outside the womb either.

so rather than prevent something so malformed as to not survive outside the womb from being put outside the womb resulting in the death of a woman, you would rather have the woman die and a fetus that doesn't have a chance see the light of day for a brief moment?

I did some digging.
I didn't know about hydrocephalus until you mentioned it. I found information here: http://www.actionco.com/issues/1/partial.htm
If this is true, and it's only done in cases necessary to save the mother I don't object.
But at the same time I found sites like these :
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact10.html
http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_9313pb.asp
We have testimony by a doctor who performed abortions that up to 80% of the D&E operations were elective and not necessary.
I can't find a full transcript of this Dr. Haskell, so these quote could be taken out of context. I don't know.
If the D&E procedure is the only way to save the life of the mother or pretect her from permanent damage, I don't protest it. But if these fetuses are being killed when another option is available...it's just barbaric.

As long as it does not become an elective procedure, I fully support it. In life-or-death cases, the mother's life trumps the baby's. In cases wherein the fetus is already dead, there is no argument against it. In other cases, such as severe birth defects, it would be cruel and inhuman to deliver the baby.


Mooninininites: Having looked at your websites, I would caution you about using biased information. Both nrlc and abortionfacts are very obviously run by pro-lifers (though abortionfacts attempts to cover it with a veneer of neutrality). When doing internet research (or any kind of research whatsoever, in fact) you must be extremely vigilant for bias in your sources. I find that, in these sorts of cases, clinical sources and other medical sites, whose main focus is NOT abortion, are the most reliable. Any site focused solely on abortion is going to carry bias.

It's not hard to understand why abortion is such a hot-button issue. Some see it as an issue of personal freedom, others as an issue of life or death. Uncertainty about when human life begins only compounds the problem. But that's not what this thread is about.

What is hard to understand is why so many people specifically support partial-birth abortions. For those who don't know what differentiates partial-birth abortion from other abortion procedures:



In other words, partial-birth abortion is not killing a fetus, but a fully developed newborn child. There's no question whether the victim is viable outside the uterus or whether it's an individual human being, as with other abortions. Why would anyone support such a thing?

It isn't fully developed. They use drugs to cause a premature delivery. The term "Partial Birth" was invented by the Republicans in order to discredit it.

i dont know what makes you think that anyone would go through something like that if they didnt have to. its about the most horrible thing that a woman can be forced to make a decision on.

its done from medical necessity. they are babies that are not going to live. MAYBE they can be born alive, maybe at the cost of the mothers future fertiliy, but they wont LIVE.

all states have laws restricting late term abortions, they can only be done under fairly strict guidelines. that means that if you outlaw THIS procedure, the doctor will have to choose a different one with the same result.

Are partial-birth abortions justifiable?

Yes, but only in cases where the mother's health is in danger. Other then that, there is plenty of time to get an abortion legally before 20 weeks of pregnancy.

1. If the baby is already dead... then it's not an abortion. It's called a D&E.

2. If there's something wrong... there's another route.... it's called a caeserian. My sister just had one. (she also had a miscarriage 4 years ago and had the baby removed through a D&E.)

3. a lot of cases for partial birth abortions are because the child is unwanted.

To me, I'm not a pro-choice, but I'm not pro-life. If the health of the mother is in danger and there is absolutely no other way, then so be it. I know a couple who have adopted children with birth defects (missing fingers, toes, hairlip, oddly shapen tendons--all in the same child) and their children are as happy as any other normal kid. There are people out there looking for kids, and some who are willing to pay the medical bills it may take.

We have testimony by a doctor who performed abortions that up to 80% of the D&E operations were elective and not necessary.
I can't find a full transcript of this Dr. Haskell, so these quote could be taken out of context. I don't know.
If the D&E procedure is the only way to save the life of the mother or pretect her from permanent damage, I don't protest it. But if these fetuses are being killed when another option is available...it's just barbaric.
any doctor who did that would be in violation of both AMA regulations and state laws. the "doctor" you cite is either lying or a criminal, and in either case is not relavent to our discussion here.

1. If the baby is dead... then it's not an abortion. It's called a D&C.

it's a d&x.

2. If there's something wrong... there's another route.... it's called a caeserian. My sister just had one. (she also had a miscarriage 4 years ago and had the baby removed.)

yes, it can be done that way, but the less invasive way is a d&x. if your sister had gone that route, she wouldn't have to stay in teh hospital as long nor would she have to risk infection as much.

3. a lot of cases for partial birth abortions are because the child is unwanted.

not true. it's done out of medical necessity. unless you can provide an unbiased source indicating otherwise.

1. If the baby is dead... then it's not an abortion. It's called a D&C.


the procedures covered under what anti-choice people refer to as "partial birth abortion" include D&C

2. If there's something wrong... there's another route.... it's called a caeserian. My sister just had one. (she also had a miscarriage 4 years ago and had the baby removed.)

oh yeah, sure, because it is more medically sound to cut through layers of muscle, fat, and connective tissue, performing major surgery, to remove a dead fetus or a fatally deformed one from the mother's body. sure. whatever.

3. a lot of cases for partial birth abortions are because the child is unwanted.


wrong. in the last 15 years, NOT ONE SINGLE ELECTIVE "PARTIAL BIRTH" ABORTION HAS BEEN LEGALLY PERFORMED IN THE UNITED STATES. not one. claims to the contrary are often made by anti-choice advocates, but the AMA has kept close watch on this (as has the federal and state government health systems), and the reality is that elective D&E is a total fabrication.

Mooninininites: Having looked at your websites, I would caution you about using biased information. Both nrlc and abortionfacts are very obviously run by pro-lifers (though abortionfacts attempts to cover it with a veneer of neutrality). When doing internet research (or any kind of research whatsoever, in fact) you must be extremely vigilant for bias in your sources. I find that, in these sorts of cases, clinical sources and other medical sites, whose main focus is NOT abortion, are the most reliable. Any site focused solely on abortion is going to carry bias.
I kinda guessed nrlc's bias from it's name :P. Give me some credit. That's why I would like to know if the testimonies they quote from are taken out of context, or if they've been proven false since. I tried a link that was supposed to lead to the full transcript on the Congressional website, but it crapped out on me.
If the fetus is dead, I've got no beef with a D&E. If the mother's life is at risk, again, I have no problem with it. But I still have these testimonies by a doctor who called 80% of the procedures "elective".
If he's been proven wrong or lying I withdraw all protests.

Partial-birth abortion is wrong - while I will allow abortions in 1st and 2nd trimesters (tho I don't like it), IMO the fetus is far too developed to be aborted after that. Plus, the woman would have had HALF A YEAR to do something, so she'll (IMO) should take responsibility for her actions (or lack of).

Yet if a mother's life *IS* at risk, I will (reluctantly) allow it

Yet if a mother's life *IS* at risk, I will (reluctantly) allow it

well, good thing that's the only time it's used then, isn't it?

Same as most people..

Elective no..

Required yes.

Same as most people..

Elective no..

Required yes.

i love being different. i'll bet you i am the only person you will ever meet that supports elective abortion at any point of a pregnancy, for any reason at all.