# Partial birth abortions rare and medically necessary or elective and not uncommon? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 22, 2003, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348 "2003-04-22T17:00:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/81 "2003-04-28T15:42:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\*I will assume that this is a grudging admission that Planned Parenthood does, in fact, engage in political activism. > > Of course, pretty much all anti-abortion groups owe their existence to Roe v. Wade, so all their political activity is just as defensive and reactionary as PP. And many anti-abortion groups provide “crisis pregnancy” services to women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy, although not abortion referrals, so they have a reason to exist even apart from opposing partial-birth abortion. > > Regards, > Shodan \*\* Trying to browbeat vulnerable women into having unwanted babies is a hardly an ethical service. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/82 "2003-04-28T15:42:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*I consider political activism to be the attempt to change or influence existing law. \*\* Well good, we have that settled. For whatever reason, good or bad, Planned Parenthood (as evidenced by their own web site that I linked to twice) engages in political activism. Ergo, the same suspicions that you apply to statements from other groups because of political activism…would of course apply to PP. Glad we got that cleared up. ---
**Author:** ![cj\_finn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4bbf92/32.png) [@cj\_finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cj_finn)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/83 "2003-04-28T15:46:33Z")
This debate seems to have degenerated into a complete pissing match. One I’m inclined to avoid. But as I have questions unanswered, I’ll post anyway. (If you folks feel that this is a private war, just say so.) I’m still curious about the fetal organ harvesting issue. Are we still talking about a “$ for organs” type of arrangement similar to the reported Chinese practice of parting out executed criminals, or are we talking about a standard tissue supply arrangement of the type commonly found in all American hospitals wherein useful tissues are recovered from surgeries for testing or the like. I’m of the opinion that the whole “fetal organ harvesting” tag is a bit misleading and was coined to specifically raise the specter of the organ thief of popular urban myth. What’s more, no one has provided any evidence that the partial birth procedure is at all necessary for harvesting any types of tissues from fetuses. I don’t believe that it is at all necessary for the harvest of tissues (or organs if you prefer) and that the whole organ harvesting argument is nothing but a strawman. Finally, who cares how a fetus is aborted when the end result is the same? cj ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/84 "2003-04-28T15:49:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by beagledave \* > \*\*Well good, we have that settled. For whatever reason, good or bad, Planned Parenthood (as evidenced by their own web site that I linked to twice) engages in political activism. > > Ergo, the same suspicions that you apply to statements from other groups because of political activism…would of course apply to PP. > > Glad we got that cleared up. \*\* I guess we’ll just have to disagree as usual. I’m saying that groups like NRL are formed purely for political lobbying purposes. PP actually has a non-political reason for its existence. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/85 "2003-04-28T15:53:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Finally, who cares how a fetus is aborted when the end result is the same? It’s not about the fetus, it’s about the safety of the woman. The D&X is the safest way to perform an abortion after the first trimester. Banning the D&X procedure would result in doctors having to perform more intrusive and less safe procedures. The fetuses will be just as dead but the risk to women will be increased. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/86 "2003-04-28T16:05:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*I guess we’ll just have to disagree as usual. I’m saying that groups like NRL are formed purely for political lobbying purposes. PP actually has a non-political reason for its existence. \*\* Even assuming that the NRL is strictly a political organization, do I understand that you’re saying that means that information that comes from them is automatically suspect? Do you apply the same criteria to **all** organizations whose primary mission is political? Do I have you on record as being suspicious of The [National Organization for Women](http://www.now.org)? The [Brady Campaign](http://www.bradycampaign.org/) and other gun control groups? The [Feminist Majority](http://www.feminist.org)? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/87 "2003-04-28T16:09:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by beagledave \* > \*\*Even assuming that the NRL is strictly a political organization, do I understand that you’re saying that means that information that comes from them is automatically suspect? > > Do you apply the same criteria to **all** organizations whose primary mission is political? > > Do I have you on record as being suspicious of > > The [National Organization for Women](http://www.now.org)? > > The [Brady Campaign](http://www.bradycampaign.org/) and other gun control groups? > > The [Feminist Majority](http://www.feminist.org)? \*\* Yes. These are all political organizations. You will notice that I have never cited any of them as a source. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/88 "2003-04-28T17:11:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*It’s not about the fetus, it’s about the safety of the woman. The D&X is the safest way to perform an abortion after the first trimester. Banning the D&X procedure would result in doctors having to perform more intrusive and less safe procedures. The fetuses will be just as dead but the risk to women will be increased. \*\* No, **Diogenes** , this is incorrect. The AMA has stated for the record (in one of my earlier links) that partial birth abortion is never the only appropriate procedure. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/89 "2003-04-28T17:28:50Z")
They have stated that it is the _safest_ after the first trimester. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/90 "2003-04-28T18:13:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*They have stated that it is the _safest_ after the first trimester. \*\* Huh. Well I’m going to have ask for a cite on that. Especially considering that the AMA states [here](http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_online/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HOD/H-5.982.HTM) > [@](#): > > (2) According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X. The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/91 "2003-04-28T18:57:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\*I see. So I take it that you shall vociforously refuse to accept any pro-choice sources, eh? Including physicians who conduct abortions? \*\* I’m not “vociforously” refusing anything. What I said, and what I meant, is that I don’t automatically trust ANY source with an agenda, whether they agree with me, or not. I put no more faith in, say, a pro-choice site, than one which advocates banning abortion. Both are equally capable of, and prone to, skewing data and slanting results to suit their point of view. I will give more credence to a source who says, “Here’s data. Make of it what you will,” as the CDC does. This is not to say that I immediately think, “Oh, this is bunk because it comes from a source with an agenda.” No. What I will do is see if I can corroberrate any claim through neutral sources before deciding if I will trust its accuracy, or dismiss it. Call me a skeptic, but if you tell me the sky is blue, I’ll confirm with NOAA before I put my faith in it. \*\* > [@](#): > > It’s always interesting to see how pro-life data is treated with hard-nosed skepticism, whereas pro-choice arguments aren’t given nearly the same level of scrutiny. Of course, instead of addressing pro-life arguments, it’s a lot easier to say “You people are biased! You could be lying!” \*\* As I said, I give equal scrutiny to both sides. Anyone who doesn’t, in my opinion, is too credulous to be trusted. **Shodan** said: > [@](#): > > Entirely true. In this case, the ones lying are those advocating partial birth abortion. Proof of this has already been linked to (and ignored). Did you need it again? Personally, I don’t care who’s doing the lying. In an emotional issue such as this, both sides can be equally guilty. This debate can only come down to an individual’s personal feelings and point of view-- whether you personally believe that abortion is “right” or “wrong.” No amount of debate will ever change someone’s feelings about a matter, especially when the parties concerned may not be interested in changing their own minds, but those of whom they’re debating. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/92 "2003-04-28T19:37:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > **I then quoted “professional health-care providers with access to real statistics and real personal experience” who were on the record as opposing partial-birth abortion.** Actually, the AMA doesn’t oppose support a ban on “partial-birth” (here we go with that term again, which even they refuse to use) abortion. What the AMA does is **recommend** that _D&E_ be used in place of _intact D&X_. They only recommend the latter if the alternatives pose a greater risk to the woman. This doesn’t affect late-term abortions in the least, as far as numerically. It’s just a recommendation as to which technique to use. They also **recommend** that third trimester abortions not be performed except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life. We’ve already seen that the numbers of abortions performed in the third trimester are very very small, and most of the pro-life evidence being bandied about regards second trimester issues, as has been shown in previous posts, even though they are confusing enough (even to advocates) to make one think that doctors are performing third trimester abortions at alarming rates. Since it’s the AMA you’re quoting, I got it straight from their [mouth](http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_online/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HOD/H-5.982.HTM). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/93 "2003-04-28T19:57:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lissa \* > \*\* > Personally, I don’t care who’s doing the lying. In an emotional issue such as this, both sides can be equally guilty. > > This debate can only come down to an individual’s personal feelings and point of view-- whether you personally believe that abortion is “right” or “wrong.” No amount of debate will ever change someone’s feelings about a matter, especially when the parties concerned may not be interested in changing their own minds, but those of whom they’re debating. \*\* A valid point of view. I would hope, however, that opinions are based on confirmed facts. Which, in the case of partial birth abortion, is not always the case. Even for those who support the procedure, and some of them have been deliberately deceptive. I expect the AMA would meet most people’s standards as an objective source of information. They oppose partial birth abortion. FWIW, here is the corrected link for the stalking case. [http://www.all.org/celebrate\_life/cl9309.htm](http://www.all.org/celebrate_life/cl9309.htm) It happened in 1993, and I cannot locate a news source that describes the case going back that far. So this is a pro-life source. The incident was reported in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, but I cannot locate it in any archive. So (to answer the OP) is partial birth abortion rare? It happens (according to those who perform the procedure) some thousands of times per year. Is that ‘rare’? It depends, I suppose, on your point of view. Were lynchings rare in the Old South? After all, there were millions of blacks in the US during the first forty years of the century, and only a few hundred were lynched. Is PBA medically necessary? Here the answer is rather clearly No. The AMA has stated for the record (thanks, **beagledave** ) that "According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X. The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. " Is PBA elective? Again, according to those who perform the procedure, up to a third of the time it is performed on a healthy woman with a healthy fetus. The pro-choice movement reminds me of what the National Rifle Association used to be like. They are willing to go to almost any lengths to defend what most find indefensible, because of the gnawing fear that even the slightest restriction is a bellwether of draconian restrictions to come. They refuse, therefore, any consideration of compromise, and turn to lies and deceptions to try to deceive others into supporting what they want. And yet somehow or other, it always seems to be the pro-life side that gets called a bunch of fanatical extremists. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/94 "2003-04-28T20:18:47Z")
Here is the substance of the “stalking” link: > [@](#): > > Four pro-abortion activists were recently arrested while “trying to track” an Operation Rescue group in Minneapolis. Authorities stated that the actions of the pro-aborts were in violation of Minnesota’s new “anti-stalking” law. The four volunteers were following a caravan of OR recruits who were **on their way to protest at the homes of two abortionists.** The OR volunteers pulled over at a gas station to “tell police they were being followed.” (Bolding is mine) So some pro-choicers were following some anti-abortion zealots who were on their way to _stalk two doctors_. Is this the best you can do for pro-choice terrorism, **Shodan**? You’re usually capable of better than this. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/95 "2003-04-28T23:47:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\*A valid point of view. I would hope, however, that opinions are based on confirmed facts. \*\* Unfortunately, a good portion of opinions aren’t. > [@](#): > > \*\*So (to answer the OP) is partial birth abortion rare? It happens (according to those who perform the procedure) some thousands of times per year. Is that ‘rare’? It depends, I suppose, on your point of view. Were lynchings rare in the Old South? After all, there were millions of blacks in the US during the first forty years of the century, and only a few hundred were lynched. \*\* [From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States](http://www.berea.edu/ENG/chesnutt/classroom/lynchingstat.html) that we know of. (That number could be low.) And there’s an incredible difference between abortion and lynching. Lynching is meant to cause terror and pain and intimidate others. An abortion is a medical procedure. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/96 "2003-04-29T01:43:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lissa \* > > * * * > > [From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States](http://www.berea.edu/ENG/chesnutt/classroom/lynchingstat.html) that we know of. (That number could be low.) > \*\* According to that site…not all the lynchings were of blacks, but either way Shodan’s point still stands. As a **percentage** of total blacks, the numbers of blacks who were lynched is “relatively” small. Pure percentages might not tell the whole story though…whether in terms of lynchings or IDX/PBA. > [@](#): > > \*\* > And there’s an incredible difference between abortion and lynching. Lynching is meant to cause terror and pain and intimidate others. An abortion is a medical procedure. \*\* A point that has nothing to do with the perception of “rareness” being discussed. The question, again, was how “rare” IDX/PBAs were. Shodan’s point (I think) was that “rareness” can be thought of in different ways, not just as a strict percentage…but also in terms of raw numbers. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/97 "2003-04-29T01:45:42Z")
BTW, still hoping for that cite from DtC that the AMA has taken a position on IDX/PBAs… > [@](#): > > … that it is the safest after the first trimester. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/98 "2003-04-29T01:58:22Z")
From an editorial in the [/url=http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/amn\_03/edlt0428.htm]AMA newsletter _today_ > [@](#): > > Regarding “Ban on intact dilatation and extraction passes in the Senate” (AMNews, April 7): While supporters of the ban on so-called “partial-birth abortion” claim that the legislation passed by > the Senate in March would outlaw only one procedure – intact dilation and extraction – legal and medical experts agree that the actual language of the bill is much broader. > > **If enacted, the safest and most common abortion procedure early in the second trimester – dilation and evacuation – would be prohibited.** Courts across the country have struck down attempts to outlaw so-called “partial-birth abortions” for being an unconstitutional threat to women’s health. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/99 "2003-04-29T02:23:15Z")
**Diogenes** , did you even _read_ the article in question? It says that _dilation and evacuation_ is the safest of the common abortion procedures in the second trimester. It says nothing about the safety of intact dilation and extraction. Here is a description of the [dilation and evacuation](http://www.laurushealth.com/Library/HealthGuide/IllnessConditions/topic.asp?hwid=tw2462) procedure. As you can see, it bears no resemblance to partial birth abortion or intact D&X. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/100 "2003-04-29T02:34:06Z")
[Fixed link](http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/amn_03/edlt0428.htm) Here is a [CNN](http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/05/14/ama.abortion/) piece regarding the AMA’s positition on intact D&X and the alternatives to it: > [@](#): > > The AMA recommends against intact dilation and extraction, unless alternative procedures pose a greater risk to the woman. > > One alternative procedure is called “labor induction,” in which a solution is injected into the amniotic fluid, ending the life of the fetus and inducing labor. > > Other options include surgical removal of the fetus, and surgical removal of the uterus and fetus. The latter two methods are rarely used due to the significant medical risks they pose to the woman. > > **The AMA report goes on to say, “The physician must, however, retain the discretion” to decide what procedure is used. The AMA says in some rare cases, intact dilation and extraction is the safest method of late-term abortion.** > > The AMA report also recommends that “abortion not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life.” I must admit that I also got confused about the difference between intact D&X and Dilation and _evacuation_ which involves dismemebering the fetus in utero before removing it. The PBA legislation would not ban this procedure, even according to the [NRLC](http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact14.html): [quote] The term “intact dialation and evacuation” should not be confused with “dialation and evacuation,” which is a procedure commonly used in second-trimester abortions, involving dismemberment of the fetus/baby while still in the uterus. The bill does not apply to “dialation and evacuation” abortions at all. So I stand slightly corrected. The Intact D&X is only _sometimes_ the safest procedure (and according to the AMA also offers the best chance of saving a woman’s life in some situations. It is unconscionable for congress to insert itself between a patient and a doctor in a life threatening situation). Sometimes the safest option is a D&E and sometimes it’s labor induction. Which of those are most appealing to you? You have to pick one, now, these abortions have to happen somehow. The surgical removal of the fetus id obviously the most risky, so I’m guessing we’ll see a lot of D&E’s. I guess I’m ok with that as long as doctors have the option of a D&X when it’s warranted, and when it’s “warranted” is for a doctor and patient to decide, not the government. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348.md?page=6)