Partial Birth Abortion

There is a rather lenghty debate on this very topic buried here on A2K somewhere but...

Lemme just ask this - If a woman's life is endangered by a pregnancy what removes the danger faster?

A. Delivering the fetus completely.

B. Halting the delivery part way through, performing a medical procedure on the fetus while it remains partially inside the woman's body and then completing the delivery.


It seems logical to me that procedure A would remove the danger faster. (I still think the law that was passed should have had a provision in it concerning the health of the woman though..)

I appologize if I brought up an old subject. I'm new! That's my excuse. I do thank you for your insight on this issue. I'm not sure what makes sense. There are so many pros and cons with this one.

No need to apologize. Things get brought up over and over again all the time.

Is that your considered medical opinion, fishin'?

It's one of my views on the topic at hand! Can you demonstrate the logic to be faulty in this case?

The concern that there may be a case where the procedure is necessary is why I think there should have been a provision in the law. The people in Congress that pushed this legislation thought they could get away without having it because the professional group that represents OB/GYNs nationally stated in testimony that there was never a case where there were no alternate procedures that could be used if the woman's life were in danger.

The viability issue is a touchy one. Roe v. Wade basically put viability at the 3rd trimester and allowed for increased government regulation of abortions at that point. (The partial birth process is one that is used almost exclusively in the 3rd trimester.). On the other side of that advances in medical science push the point of viability earlier and earlier in the pregnancy.

That is the part of the ban that REALLY bothers me. I remember hearing this when I was very young. It seemed that within the Catholic church, if there were a choice between saving a mother or a fetus, the church believed that the fetus got first preference. The rationale was that the fetus had not yet been baptized.

I really wonder if the lack of a provision for the health of the mother may have been religiously based.

Fishin', I'm not a doctor, so I am not competent to recommend courses of treatment or medical procedures. I am also aware that my extremely limited medical knowledge provides no basis for making guesses as to the "logic" of those treatments and procedures. I wouldn't give anyone advice on what procedure is "logically" sound, nor would I take any such medical advice from someone like me.

Furthermore, I would guess that the vast majority of congressmen and state legislators are not medical doctors either. Consequently, I wouldn't want them to make medical decisions for my doctor, nor would I want my doctor to follow their decisions if they were medically unsound.

Quote: "It seemed that within the Catholic church, if there were a choice between saving a mother or a fetus, the church believed that the fetus got first preference."

I do agree that religious beliefs do have a large portion of disagreement with this procedure. I know of several conditions that do pose a serious health risk to the pregnant mother that only shows up only in later stages of pregnancy. This does occur with young and otherwise healthy women only because of the danger pregnancy can present to any woman. The child may be disabled for life.

I would guess that brain damage is the majority of problems due to the newborns inability for adequate gas exchange, necessary for life. Early birth of life does not necessarily, no matter what medical intervention, solve the problem being, lack of physical maturity of lung development level, needed for adequate brain functon without permanent damage for durations of time which can be a matter of minutes. Respiratory problems, common with premature infants, cause and does cause irreversible brain damage that cannot be corrected, which is the usual problem of very early births.

Neurons cannot heal, like a broken bone. Once damaged, it is forever. The deficit on the newborn can show up anywhere in which the brain did not receive adequate oxygenation, due to an immature respiratory system with unknown future results. Is it unreasonable that parents decide whether or not they are capable or willing to raise a handicapped child with large risk? Personally, I would like all possible information in order to make an informed decision for myself and family, which I see as no one's concern but my own and my family.

I still question whether parents of the child or the mother should be legally able to make a decision, given the severe risk to her health and the very real risk of premature birth, given how premature, may affect the new life in this world which parents have to take complete responsiblity for without choice, information, or concent. I do think most parents would choose to take this risk, with information. It should be up to family, patient, and doctor, with complete information about degree of risk to mother and child, in my opinion.

I only wish the legal profession would stop making medical judgement, which they were not trained, only because of jackpot sums of money only due to poor outcome, not neglance only because a jury feels sorry for the pain of the individual, which is unavoidable. People should use reason and judgement.

Lawyers screw everything up!

Hold on there, Wildflower. Let's not blame lawyers for this mess. This is the work of politicians -- some, but not all, of whom just happen to be lawyers.

I posted a new topic on the most hated professions. Admittedly, lawyers are my #1 on this list. I do not feel they are ethical or represent ethical clients. I feel lawyers are nothing more than financial terrorist. I am very sure there are a few decent ones left, but it's very hard not to use your education to gain wealth of you equals. Money is always enticing.

a brief albeit strange analogy here but do we dislike plumbers because they often work with ****?

Who in their right mind would dislike or, even worse, hate a working person because they "work with ****"? As long as you earn an honest living, what does it really matter?

If I decide to work for McDonalds flipping burgers and live in a cheap apartment without much money, should I earn the disrespect of people for putting in an honest day's work? No way!

Too many of us "work with ****" in low paying jobs and are honest. I used to consider jobs, like WalMart offers, kid jobs. I see people of all ages working for a low wage, but they are working. They are trying, which deserves respect.

Not all professions do. People with professions of power and influence often are not honest as someone you may see as some loser working for a low wage. I only wish they were.

Wildflower, I agree with you that abortion should be the decision of the mother and the physician. I really don't see how someone could choose a partial birth abortion willingly!!

As far as Dys's comment about plumbers working with ****--he was referring to the fact that lawyers work with criminals as well as those who are innocent. Sure, some of them are greedy and willing to go to court just to increase their wealth, but there are plenty of plumbers who will try to sell you equipment you don't need simply because he will make an easy profit. It is only the amounts that differ, not the rationale or motive.

Apparently 2200 American women do every year.

That seems like an archaic position.
Last I heard (about 5 years ago), the Catholic Church never allows abortion under any circumstance but should the fetus die in the process of saving the mother's life, there is no sin commited.

No, you are right. Most of them aren't medical professionals. But you do follow their medical decisions every day anyway.

Their decisions effect who can be your doctor to begin with (i.e. state licensing). They also decide what drugs your doctor can prescribe and for what purposes, what equipment your doctor can use and what medical procedures are acceptable and which aren't (i.e. FDA regulation).

Their decisions also weren't made without consulting with, and the testimony of, several hundred medical professionals.

fishin': Quite right. Legislators make medical decisions all the time, in that they determine the legality of various medicines, treatments, and procedures. But then those decisions, as you point out, are typically supported by a thorough medical and scientific review, often through specialized agencies such as the FDA. Procedures and devices of questionable medical worth (such as can be found at this site) are outlawed or restricted because they have been found to be medically unsound.

Partial birth abortion, in contrast, has never been deemed medically unsound. It is, instead, politically unsound. Legislators who vote to ban the procedure are not looking out for the welfare of their constituents, they're looking out for their own political welfare. And when the legislators vote to ban the procedure, they're not acting in the patients' best interests but in their own. In short, the debate over partial birth abortion isn't about medicine, it's about politics.

Well said Joe. This procedure is so gruesome that people are outraged, politically speaking. I also agree with the statement made that no woman would willingly go through this procedure if she weren't in fear of her life. I think people are afraid, just as in doctor assisted suicide, of what may come next.

I think people fear that this method of late term abortion may be used for a last minute change of mind as a form of family planning. People are also afraid that by allowing patient choice of a time to die, this can be exploited. Fear of exploitation is the real issue, not the legal terms presented today.

I also feel it is correct that the law does use expert advice in the field of medicine questioning risk and probable outcome. Many procedures are not approved in the US, but are used in Europe. I don't think procedures like this are not studied thoroughly with scientific method by experts who guide legal view. A new drug is never introduced without passing very high standards of complete study in scientific form by experts in the field in this country that other countries will readily try, not the US though.

I do feel this should be a personal decision between patient and doctor for this procedure. I would advise more than one medical opinion before taking such drastic measure. As a woman, I can tell you that the vast majority who carry a child to later terms of pregnancy do love the unborn. They want a healthy child. They don't want to die trying though, especially seeing their body rapidly deteriorate to the risk of death. No one needs a doctor to tell them something is drastically wrong. You know it.

When the pregnant woman's health declines, so does that of the unborn. It is reasonable to say that the child very well may die because of deteriorating health of the pregnant mother or if born, may suffer serious defect of early birth. The risk is very high.