Yes, I have to say that during this debate, I could certainly understand, if not necessarily agree with, various positions people have taken on “when personhood begins,” such as viablity, etc. This one, though, I really don’t get. Not only is it pretty clear, I think, that it is an actual baby at this point, there is really no excuse for not having had an abortion in the first 5 or 6 months, if that was what you wanted to do. As far as “health of the mother” is concerned, I have really not seen any data that explains to my satisfaction why a partial-birth abortion is less dangerous to the mother than a full birth…they have to get the baby most of the way out in order to finish the procedure.
Baby heads are big, and they get really big in the later stages of pregnancy. If a woman’s health is sufficiently precarious that a caesarean procedure or an episiotomy runs a high risk of infection or hemorrhage, performing a Dilation and Extraction (D&X) procedure (a medically more useful term than “partial birth”) late in the second trimester could easily be far safer that carrying the pregnancy to term.
Yes, I know…I’ve pushed one out of there myself, and it wasn’t easy. 
If a woman’s health is SO precarious that she can’t have even a small amount of blood loss (as in an episiotomy) or risk of infection, then the pregnancy should never have been carried out to the 8th month in the first place. I would really like to know the circumstances where a woman learns, at 8 months gestation, that she is not likely to live through the delivery. It seems to me the pregnancy itself would be pretty dangerous.
Abortions this late are exceedingly rare, accounting for less than 0.2% of all abortions performed each year: “2,200 of the 1 million U.S. abortions performed each year” are late term D and Xes
They usually happen when the baby dies or is in danger of dying in utero for some reason. If this happens, it’s important to get the baby out, lest it’s body infect the mother. A D and X is far safer than a c-section, which has all the risks of major abdominal surgery.
They’ll generally try to get the woman to labor and deliver a (dead) baby, but if she has a difficult labor, or it won’t progress (her cervix won’t dilate far enough) and they know the baby has no chance of living, they’ll perform a D and X. Although a c-section might sound like a more humane method of extraction, a D and X is quick and painless, and not as invasive or dangerous for the mother. They’re almost always done on babies who are going to die anyway or are already dead. (I can’t say “always”, because there’s always an exception, but I’ve never seen a reputable, verified case report of a D and X on an otherwise healthy mother and baby.)
Very occasionally (and I hate to even mention it, it’s so rare and I don’t want to scare pregnant moms) a baby will get stuck in the birth canal and not be able to be removed by forceps, suction or c-section. In those very, very, very rare and tragic cases, a D and X will be required, and the baby will not survive. It’s horrible and tragic and very, very, very rare.
There are some cases of eclampsia, kidney disease, uncontrolled diabetes or other maternal health issues where “wait and see” turns into “something must be done NOW!” Generally, a c-section can be performed, but very occasionally, the mother will not be expected to survive anasthesia or the surgical process for some reason (infection, blood loss, etc.).
There’s an example case of a trisomy 13 baby discovered at a routine ultrasound late in pregnancy at that link.
A D and X is not done for routine “birth control” abortions. It is done for medical reasons. It’s a sad fact that not every pregnancy results in a healthy delivery.
Why are you arbitrarily picking 8 months as the benchmark? As I understand it, the D&X procedure is most often performed around the fourth or fifth month.
Well, I can imagine a case of fetal hydrocephalus or gestational hypertension or severe preeclampsia going undetected until quite late, or the woman suffering some sort of physical injury that makes continuing the pregnancy dangerous. It’s a decision I’m content to leave to the woman and her OB/GYN.
I actually am not arguing these facts, I am just trying to say, as you did, that these circumstances are exceedingly rare, and that I do not consider an EMERGENCY situation such as you describe to be “an abortion” as such. I was actually disputing MrDibble’s opinion:
MrDibble may want to dispute my assumption, but it sounds to me as if this means under any circumstances, which is what I have a problem with.
Okay, under what circumstances would you have the greatest problem?
Any circumstance that does not involve a serious threat to the mother’s life.
I assume you also mean the pregnancy is eight or more months along (if not, please advise). How common do you think this is? A specific ban on such a rare occurance would be a pointless exercise except (may pro-choicers feel) it opens to door to other emotion-based legislation on the issue, gradually adding mopre restrictions until pro-lifers no longer have a problem, which is essentially nothing short of a total ban.
Maybe you should read the whole thread, because I laid out as clearly as I could that I AM pro-life, and why I feel this way. It has nothing to do with emotion, or religion (I am not particularly religious), but because in light of all evidence, I believe that the fetus/baby (choose your own agenda-laden language here), is a unique human individual, and therefore has the right to live.
The uniqueness and human-ness of the fetus is irrelevant and overruled by the uniqueness and human-ness of the mother. I believe her wishes should have unquestioned priority.
That said, I don’t know of any doctors who’d casually terminate an otherwise healthy 8-month pregnancy, nor do I think they should be compelled to. How often do you think this situation occurs?
(my question)
It is a fact of law (words?) that there is always (question?). This effect can even be called a commandment or natural law.
That is why justice demands proof beyond question (reasonable doubt?)before peaceful pursuit is just denied. Please review my [url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=371911]dictionary **if you wish to see where I stand and what I call those that would deny the spirit of liberty for their (killing?)words (definitions?, translations?, bable?).
By all means, help all choose the way that is best for her self and her spirit. But be it by technology or miracle; only the mother and god have just authority over how much longer life is to be prolonged.
r~
Why?
Because I wouldn’t want anyone telling me that I had to serve as someone else’s host (putting aside the obvious biological issues for the moment) so I refuse to compel others to do so.
We, as a society, have no problem with splicing, creating or destroying human DNA. I do it on a daily basis. All of your cells have human DNA, and you carelessly slough them off continuously. Human DNA exists in the absence of human beings or even human cells.
What I’m getting at is that if we are going to put a deadline on when a fetus becomes a baby, and therefore set abortion law, the existence of human DNA is a meaningless yardstick. The DNA exists before conception.
What Sagan proposes, and I agree with, is setting that yardsick not as you quote as when there is a uniquely human characteristic, but when that fetus becomes uniquely human.
I can understand that position, but I don’t agree with it. I see no reason why her wishes should have unquestioned priority.
I don’t have any idea how often, and I don’t think it’s relevant.
It is true that MY DNA is shed every day in all my skin cells, but there are 2 fundamental differences between that and an embryo. First, the embryo is not made up of MY DNA or YOUR DNA, but it’s own unique DNA. Second, my skin cells are not going to become a fully-formed human being, no matter how long we wait. Sagan was basically saying that to be “uniquely human” you have to have some characteristic that makes you different from any other mammal, and that early in fetal development, all mammals tend to look alike, so you don’t have any uniquly human characteristic at that time. I was merely trying to say that, yes you do, you have human DNA…that is a human characteristic. It doesn’t matter what the fetus LOOKS like at that moment in development…it’s going to become a human baby. So my point is that I also agree with Sagan that they yardstick should be set at having a uniquely human characteristic. I just happen to believe that being formed into an implated zygote with a unique human genotype IS the moment in question.
I am still not clear of your positions. Are you saying we should deny inalienable rights based on whether one’s potential offspring’s DNA is called living or whether the life is called human?
r~
I don’t think I understand the question, but I will try to answer. The context of the discussion when I posted that was at what moment in time the fetus went from not human to human. I was trying to find out the various points of view the Dopers might hold, out of my own curiousity. Someone (sorry, forget who, but it’s in the previous thread where we were discussing this), referred me to an Carl Sagan article, in which Sagan concludes that it is the presence of human thought, that is, brain waves. Since the article had been recommended to me, I thought I would give my opinion on what it said. My post above explains my thoughts about why I think Sagan is off base.
My personal opinion is that a unique human life starts when the fertilized egg becomes implanted (I won’t reiterate the reasons I have come to this conclusion), and so at that time, I feel the baby has its own inalienable rights. So, the question is, how do we balance the rights of the baby against the rights of the mother? That is a thorny question, isn’t it? could be wrong, I am not completely sure what the answer is, but I do not happen to think that the “wishes of the mother have unquestioned priority,” as **Bryan Ekers ** said. (As Stratocaster put it…“why?”)