# 'Partial-Birth' Abortions: Could So Many Doctors Be That Evil? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 28, 2003, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992 "2003-10-28T06:08:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f14d63/32.png) [@My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/My_Darn_Snake_Legs)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2003, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992/61 "2003-10-30T14:35:17Z")
If ectopic pregnancies are the ones in which the egg implants in the fallopian tube, then that falls under the unbrella of “the mother’s life is in jeopardy.” **minty** , I think that you may be thinking of **RU-486** which is actually an abrtion pill and works as you have stated. The actual drug is called Mifepristone and prevents the implantation of the egg in the uterus. The [morning after pill](http://www.drdrew.com/Office/article.asp?id=1280) on the other hand is just a double dose of daily oral contraceptive and has the same “no egg releasing effect.” So, I can still be against most abortions and for the morning after pill. So there. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2003, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992/62 "2003-10-30T14:43:36Z")
Welcome to the SDMB, **Stoneburg**! Your English is perfect, so no worries there. Your point about the illegality of elective late-term abortions is well-taken, but it’s probably also true that the reason enforcement is lax is because of the broad protections afforded to abortion under current U.S. law. The basis of the Supreme Court opinion recognizing abortion rights was the right of privacy between a patient and her physician. That zone of privacy makes it pretty difficult for police and prosecutors to investigate or charge either party for an elective late-term abortion. If the authorities even know that an abortion has occurred–which is doubtful–there’s just no way for them to determine _why_ it occurred. As for your claim that anti-abortion laws don’t work, that’s only true to a certain degree. Certainly, there will always be options for a woman who wishes to terminate a pregnancy, even when it is illegal to do so under local law–go to another jurisdiction, go to an illegal abortion provider, sterilize a coathanger, etc. But placing substantial legal barriers in the path of women seeking abortions can only have the effect of decreasing the number of women who choose to end their pregnancies. It’s no accident of demographics that the number of abortions in the U.S. rose sharply after _Roe v. Wade_. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2003, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992/63 "2003-10-30T15:09:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by My Darn Snake Legs \* > I think that you may be thinking of **RU-486** which is actually an abrtion pill and works as you have stated. The actual drug is called Mifepristone and prevents the implantation of the egg in the uterus. > > The [morning after pill](http://www.drdrew.com/Office/article.asp?id=1280) on the other hand is just a double dose of daily oral contraceptive and has the same “no egg releasing effect.” RU-486 does not work by preventing implantation of a newly-fertilized egg. While it is certainly only used to terminate early pregnancies, that means anywhere up to 7 weeks. It works by causing the uterine lining to break down, shedding off the already-implanted fetus. This is followed by a second drug that causes contractions, thereby expelling the fetus. [http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/mifepristone/mifepristone-qa.htm](http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/mifepristone/mifepristone-qa.htm) [http://www.earlyoptionpill.com/how.php3](http://www.earlyoptionpill.com/how.php3) As for Dr. Drew and “morning after” contraception . . . well, while I hate to say that a doctor is wrong, let’s just say that he’s not entirely correct: > [@](#): > > How Do Emergency Contraceptives Work? > > Depending on the time during the menstrual cycle that they are taken, ECPs may inhibit or delay ovulation, inhibit tubal transport of the egg or sperm, interfere with fertilization, or alter the endometrium (the lining of the uterus), thereby inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg. The copper in copper-T IUDs can prevent sperm from fertilizing an egg and can also alter the endometrium, thereby inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg. > > Does Use of Emergency Contraception Cause an Abortion? > > No, use of emergency contraception does not cause an abortion. In fact, emergency contraception prevents pregnancy and thereby reduces the need for induced abortion. Medical authorities such as the United States Food and Drug Administration/National Institutes of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists define the beginning of pregnancy as the implantation of a fertilized egg in the lining of a woman’s uterus. Implantation begins five to seven days after fertilization (and is completed several days later). Emergency contraceptives work before implantation and not after a woman is already pregnant. Depending on the time during the menstrual cycle that they are taken, ECPs may inhibit or delay ovulation, inhibit tubal transport of the egg or sperm, interfere with fertilization, or alter the endometrium (the lining of the uterus), thereby inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg. The copper in copper-T IUDs can prevent sperm from fertilizing an egg and can also alter the endometrium, thereby inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg. When a woman is already pregnant, emergency contraception does not work. Emergency contraception is also harmless to the fetus and the mother. [http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecwork.html](http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecwork.html) [http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.html](http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.html) So, for the third time: Is the morning-after pill acceptable to you, given that (in many cases) it prevents implantation of of fertilized eggs? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2003, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992/64 "2003-10-30T15:25:33Z")
> [@](#): > > _minty green wrote:_ > The basis of the Supreme Court opinion recognizing abortion rights was the right of privacy between a patient and her physician. No, I’m pretty sure that’s wrong. It’s the right to privacy in one’s own personal affairs, not some doctor-patient confidentiality thing. The right to privacy that Roe v. Wade was based on was built upon the right to privacy that the Supremes found in the Constitution, in the Griswold case, where they struck down state prohibitions on contraception. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2003, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992/65 "2003-10-30T15:39:41Z")
**Stoneburg** , Thank you for posting my point to **SnoopyFan** in my absence. **SnoopyFan** , the [cite](http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib13.html) that I quoted in my previous post was basically a layman terms explanation of _Roe v. Wade_. A part of which, was that RvW dealt loosely with the first trimester. Peruse the site for additional laymen’s terms explanations on rulings on the subject. You’ll see that there are rulings pertaining to first, and even some second tri issues. But third? I guess I’m going to have to call you on your anecdote. specifically: > [@](#): > > in Doe v. Bolton, the Court struck down a provision of the **Georgia** abortion statute that required two independent physicians to confirm the attending doctor’s determination that continuation of a pregnancy would endanger the woman’s life or injure her health. “The attending physician’s ‘ **best clinical judgment** that an abortion is necessary’…should be sufficient,” the Court said. > > “If a physician is licensed by the State,” the decision stated, “he is recognized by the State as capable of exercising acceptable clinical judgment. **If he fails in this, professional censure or deprivation of his license are available remedies**. Required acquiescence by co-practitioners has no rational connection with a patient’s needs and unduly infringes on the physician’s right to practice.” (bolding mine) That ruling was in the early seventies, well before your anecdotal claim took place. My point is, _IF_ such a physician were around that was willing to willy nilly perform third tri abortions, he would not last for long. Certainly not twenty years. Third tri abortions require clinical judgment, not something a physician would throw around lightly, especially in these days of malpractice. Further confounding your claim is that the physician performed the abortion for racist reasons. I think this girl you knew has told you a whopper of a story that, when held up to scrutiny, does not seem plausible. ---
**Author:** ![My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f14d63/32.png) [@My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/My_Darn_Snake_Legs)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2003, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992/66 "2003-10-30T16:42:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Does Use of Emergency Contraception Cause an Abortion? > > No, use of emergency contraception does not cause an abortion. In fact, emergency contraception prevents pregnancy and thereby reduces the need for induced abortion. Well, from your cite it looks likepregnancy doesn’t start until implantation. I’m ok with that definition I suppose. So: it doesn’t cause an abortion, and it won’t do anything to an egg that is already implanted. Not abortion = OK by me. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2003, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992/67 "2003-10-30T17:01:39Z")
Okay, so implantation is the critical point from your perspective. I disagree with that, given that there’s nothing particularly human-like about a newly-implanted embryo, but I can buy that as a legitimate dividing line. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2003, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992/68 "2003-10-30T17:08:28Z")
But **MDSL** , you are thereby arbitrarily defining a mere potentiality _threshold_. For argument’s sake, let us contend that a newborn baby is a human being. Now, let us examine the probability that the entity at various stages of development will _become_ this newborn human. It would go something like: 8 month old foetus: 98% (how many babies die during birth?) 2 month old foetus: 70%, say (how many are miscarried?) Implanted blastocyst: 40% (??) Non implanted fertilised egg: 20% (??) Egg surrounded by sperm: 10% (??) Egg in fallopian tube, sperm in vagina: 5% (??) Egg in fallopian tube, _some_ sperm in vagina after _coitus interruptus_: 1% (??) Egg in fallopian tube, sperm in condom: 0.001% (??) Egg in fallopian tube, date arrives at restaurant: …you get the idea. The debate regarding what is acceptable is simply establishing an arbitrary threshold in law. **minty** is trying to convince you that **conception is ALSO an arbitrary threshold**. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2003, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992/69 "2003-10-30T17:09:56Z")
On preview, I’ll just let him speak for himself. Sorry mate! ---
**Author:** ![My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f14d63/32.png) [@My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/My_Darn_Snake_Legs)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2003, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992/70 "2003-10-30T17:52:06Z")
The boundry is looking more ad hoc by the minute and that reinforces the slippery slope arguement that you two are making now. On the one hand, anything could potentially happen and create the conditions for a child. Right down to the metting at the restaraunt. On the other is that women should have the right to terminate the life of any child that they have birthed right up until the time which they themselves die. My point is this: there must be a sticking point somewhere. There must be a point at which a zygote/fetus/baby is protected by society (unless there is a danger to the life of the mother, as we have agreed.) Let’s looks at it from your point of view. What does it take to be a person or a potential person from your point of view? Remember that there is nothing particularly human-like about the profoundly retarded or the very old or those in a coma. I don’t think that you can just look at a particular moment in time and say: “nope, not human enough” and absolve youself of the moral wrong of killing an innocent. So, ball is in your court. Where’s the line? ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2003, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992/71 "2003-10-30T18:28:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by My Darn Snake Legs \* > So, ball is in your court. Where’s the line? there are several more reasonable options here, in my opinion. for many, it’s viability. once the baby can be birthed and live a healthy life with no more help from the mother, many would contend that the mother can no longer be in need of an abortion (barring medical complications, etc.). personally, i feel birth is the best choice. at that point, the child is no longer part of the mother, and therefore sort of earns its rights as a person, if you will. or something like that. the main difference between the two, to me, is that in the first case, the control of a mother over her body might be encroached upon. so those two seem like more reasonable options to me. as a side note, i must say, this has got to be the least vitriolic debate on abortion i’ve seen here. ---
**Author:** ![Rodrigo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Rodrigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rodrigo)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2003, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992/72 "2003-10-30T18:35:40Z")
Since so many people have said think, I won’t quote one by one but try to counter or re-inforce some arguments: 1. Morning after pill **does** cause aabortions. Although its primary effect is to stop ovulation in stops the ferilised egg from implanting. Since life begins at conception (more on that later) it **is** an abortion. What many medical association have done is muddle everything saying the _pregnancy_ starts with a successful implantation, when that was never part of the abortion debate. If pregnancies started even later the thing wouldn’t change. 2. **Potential** is a very complicated word. I am potentially Cooperstown material. I am potentially the next Pope. Life begins at conception becuase from there onwards your genetic makeup is set, and genetics define you biologically. Sperm aren’t potential humans becuase if you leave them alone they will die a sperm. 3. As to the whole “many embryos die or are miscarriaged”. ALL of us will die, that’s 100% sure. Should will kill each other then? 4. Life of the mother. Abortion is not an option even then.\*\* Before you go bananas let me explain what I mean\*\*. I DON’T mean let “the mum die”. What I said is that there is no reason to perform an abortion (direct killing) instead of removing the foetus and trying to let it live. I’m sure in 20 years’ time almost the whole pregnancy could be carried out outside the womb. Little consolation now, but that means I won’t have to change my morality evey time science changes. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2003, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992/73 "2003-10-30T18:55:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Nope, I’m not buying this potential thing for a second. Either it _is_ a human being or it _isn’t_. If it is, then you can’t abort (absent a threat to your own life or health). If it isn’t, then you can. \*\* Why? Is it not possible that a fetus, whether pre-or-post viability, is something in-between that is still worthy of protection? Why does it have to be a “human being” before it becomes worthy of protection under the law? Why do you find it impossible for a law to determine that because of it’s completely unique status, a fetus is worthy of protection from the whims of the mother, without having to say that the fetus is a human being? Seems to me you’re creating a false dilemma. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2003, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992/74 "2003-10-30T21:46:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by My Darn Snake Legs \* > Where’s the line? Hey, I’m a lawyer, not a biologist. 🙂 In my thoroughly non-expert opinion, however, I’d tie it to fetal brain function. When the higher brain functions kick in, elective abortion checks out. I’ll have to leave it to the biologists to figure out when that occurs, however. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Hamlet_ > Is it not possible that a fetus, whether pre-or-post viability, is something in-between that is still worthy of protection? Why does it have to be a “human being” before it becomes worthy of protection under the law? If you want to put it in legal terms, it’s because laws against homicide only apply when the victim is a human being. And though we’ve been talking exclusively about abortion, I would not flatly rule out legal protection for fetuses in other contexts. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2003, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992/75 "2003-10-30T22:01:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*If you want to put it in legal terms, it’s because laws against homicide only apply when the victim is a human being. And though we’ve been talking exclusively about abortion, I would not flatly rule out legal protection for fetuses in other contexts. \*\* That explains why they don’t currently prosecute people who obtain/commit abortions with homocide, but I don’t think it’s an argument against why abortion shouldn’t be made illegal. The law provides protection, in both civil and criminal law, to a vast amount of things that are not “human beings.” Dogs, cats, property, etc. are all afforded some kind of protection under the law without having to first be proven to be “human beings.” I don’t think the argument that a fetus is not a human being is relevant to a discussion of the propreity of laws outlawing abortions. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2003, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992/76 "2003-10-30T22:18:34Z")
Nonsense, Hamlet. The humanity of a fetus, or lack thereof, is absolutely fundamental to the issue of abortion’s legality. It is not, as you point out, the end of the inquiry, but it most certainly is a necessary question. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2003, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992/77 "2003-10-30T22:29:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Nonsense, Hamlet. The humanity of a fetus, or lack thereof, is absolutely fundamental to the issue of abortion’s legality. It is not, as you point out, the end of the inquiry, but it most certainly is a necessary question. \*\* Agreed, I went too far saying that it was irrelevant. What I should have said was that it is not necessary for the fetus to be fully a human being before it should be protected under the law. My bad. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2003, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992/78 "2003-10-30T22:35:28Z")
No sweat. ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2003, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992/79 "2003-10-30T22:59:32Z")
Then, **Rodrigo** , by the standards you set forth in your post, ending an ectopic pregnancy _is_ an abortion because it involves removing a fertilized egg. CJ ---
**Author:** ![SnoopyFan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d07c76/32.png) [@SnoopyFan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnoopyFan)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2003, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992/80 "2003-10-31T04:36:54Z")
**I think this girl you knew has told you a whopper of a story that, when held up to scrutiny, does not seem plausible.** Sure. Everyone knows women sit around trying to one-up each other on who had the most extreme abortion, right? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-could-so-many-doctors-be-that-evil/209992.md?page=5)