First there are many ways in which one could abort a fetus, but the main techniques that that are used are ones in which provide the mother with as little pain or discomfort as possible (It is unclear to weather the fetus can feel pain or not).
Menstrual extraction: this is done really early in the pregnancy when the “baby” is in the blastula (or something like it) stage. The doctor inserts a tube into the uterus, which suctions up the blastula.
There are many variations to the next procedure, which is done for late first trimester to second trimester. However, the techniques are basically similar, in which the doctor cuts the fetus in pieces so that they can be removed easily from the uterus.
First, I have to say that third trimester abortions are very rare and this procedure is not being done regularly (in fact I think it is illegal in most states). The body is delivered with the head of the “baby” still inside, the doctor then pierces the skull with a scissors type instrument and the contents are suctioned out. The fetus’ head is then delivered. In this case the head is kept inside so that the child (under law) would still be considered a ‘fetus’ and not a ‘baby’, if the head was also delivered then the procedure would be considered murder (under law).
I’ll try to find a link to a non-biased website (no pro-choice/life ones) for ‘a cite’, but that could be tough.
Survive for how long, though? When my daughter was born she was in intensive care for a while; few of the babies that young survived beyond a few hours, even with the best medical care.
According to my biology text books and my biology teacher, and every book I’ve read about pregnancy, 24 weeks is considered medically viable.
I always was under the impression that the bloody, dismembered photos appearing on anti-abortion posters was deliberately misleading. Based on your comments, it appears that dismembering actually occurs at certain stages of development. I didn’t know that.
It doesn’t change my pro-choice stance, but I am now less ignorant. A common occurrence for me in the SDMB.
I think the important point to remember though is that dismembering is exceptionally rare. No woman can walk in to a clinic or hospital and request this in the 3rd trimester. At least, not in this country
There are three methods of abortion used in the first trimester.
Menstrual extraction:
This is a very early suction abortion, often done before the pregnancy test is positive.
Suction-aspiration:
In this method, the abortionist must first paralyze the cervical muscle ring (womb opening) and then stretch it open. This is difficult because it is hard or “green” and not ready to open. A hollow plastic tube is then inserted, which has a knife-like edge on the tip, into the uterus. The suction tears the fetus into pieces. The placenta is then cut from the inner wall of the uterus. The remains of the fetus are sucked out into a bottle. The remains of the fetus must be examined to confirm that all parts have been removed, to prevent necrotic infection of the uterus.
Dilatation & Curettage (D&C):
This is similar to the suction procedure except that a curette, a loop-shaped steel knife, is inserted up into the uterus. With this, the placenta and fetus are cut into pieces and are scraped out. Again, the remains of the fetus must be examined to confirm that all parts of the fetus have been removed, to prevent necrotic infection of the uterus.
The dilation and extraction (D&X) involves cutting the fetus up before extracting the body parts. This would certainly result in the head being torn from the body.
A few years ago I had an abortion, for medical reasons, at about 15 weeks (for reasons I won’t go into I didn’t suspect I was pregnant till 10 weeks, then had to wait for the operation). My operation was, I’m fairly sure, of the suction type. There was no idnication that this would involve ‘cutting up’ the fetus - how does suction cut it up? However, I was warned that if I had waited any longer, I would have had to go through induced labour - not d&c or d&x. I thought they were for after miscarriages, to ensure no parts of the pregnancy tissues were left in the womb. It’s possible the practice in the UK is different.
OCC, I think with a topic such as this, it’s difficult to stick to one defined question (besides, there were several questions in the OP).
The general question was whether the photographs were authentic. One objection raised to their authenticity was that the fetuses in the photographs were torn apart. Others, including myself, pointed out that the fetuses are usually torn apart in a first-trimester abortion.
The connective tissues in a fetus are fragile and the bones are cartilage. And the force of the suction is several times more powerful than that of a vacuum cleaner.
Just out of interest (and I don’t really want to turn this thread into a poll), does anyone feel that abortion is somehow worse because the foetus is dismembered during the process (i.e. would it be better/more acceptable if it was removed intact)? If so, why?
I have two answers. My head says “no, it makes no difference whatsoever.” My gut says “that’s not right.”
It is the epitome of “gut-reaction”. Somewhat illogical and difficult to explain. It must have something to do with the implied “violence” that my gut associates with dismemberment.
And I struggle to honestly answer your question about “making abortion worse” because of this aspect of the procedure. Intellectually and philosophically it makes no difference to me at all. But I have to admit that I’d prefer a procedure where dismemberment wouldn’t occur.
I’d be particularly interested to hear the opinion of Norrybaby on the subject, since that poster said it was important to remember that dismemberment was rare (even though this appears not to be the case)
Put me down for 'Yes". I don’t think this is without analogous precedents. With a terminally ill person on a respirator, we remove the assisted breathing equipment to let the person die “naturally”. We don’t bring in a guillotine, or even use lethal injection, even though suffocating seems (IMHO) like a crueller way to go. Also, the “my body, my choice” argument becomes much weaker when extended to “my right to cut up the fetus”.
I’ll second the call for statistics on the relative prevalence of dismemberment abortions versus intact abortions. Also, is there a consensus of legal opinion whether banning dismemberment abortions would or would not be consistent with Roe V. Wade?
In Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (1986), the Supreme Court ruled that a physician, when performing a post-viability abortion, must have the authority to choose the method most likely to preserve the woman’s health.
"1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
"(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.
"(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
If the ‘baby’ isn’t a ‘person’ (per say) should dismemberment be an issue? If the ‘baby’ is a ‘person’ the dismemberment issue is moot, because then we shouldn’t be aborting them anyways. There is also the ‘pain’ issue, and the ‘mothers wishes’ (to abort or to not abort that is the question).