Partial birth abortion is bandied about in the press from time to time. Some people want to ban this particular procedure. I am interested in some dispassionate information:
What is a “partial birth abortion?”
How is it different from any other abortion?
Why would one want to have this particular abortion?
Why would one NOT want to have this particular abortion?
I was just wondering what objective information there was on this topic. I am not interested in the very many passionate points of view people have on abortion, its morality, its legality, and so forth. Just wondering what is so special about this one version of abortion. Thanks so much.
The fetus is extracted from the birth canal (i.e., it’s extracted beyond the cervix) except for the head, which remains in the birth canal. Its head is poked and a tube inserted so that the brains are sucked out. Most abortions don’t extract any part of the fetus like this – the procedure is only done with late-term pregnancies. I don’t know whether it is absolutely needed for late-term abortions, or whether it’s just the most convenient method.
Now I am vehemently pro-life, but since this is being asked in GQ, I’ll try my hardest to be, uhh, “objective”.
3) Why would one want to have this particular abortion?
Many (if not most) who opt for this procedure do so because it was found out (late in the pregnancy) that the baby had certain “defects.” Others (probably a minority) do so because they realize very late in the game that they simply do not want to go through with the birth and delivery of a child. For the record, a partial birth abortion is rarely (if ever) performed to protect the health of the mother.
4) Why would one NOT want to have this particular abortion?
A partial birth abortion usually happens in the third trimester, and is thus more complicated, painful, and costly. Of course, there is the moral aspect. (I’m gritting my teeth here!)
I don’t mean to get graphic, but I saw a show on TLC or Discovery or maybe even some other channel where they showed a partial-birth abortion being done. Basically, they have to dismember the fetus and take it out a piece at a time. Then they crush the skull and remove it. I think this is the partial-birth abortion you asked about, and you can see why many want it banned. It might be called partial birth because they have to induce dilation of the cervix the day before and the fetus is removed through the birth canal in the aforementioned manner.
I think the reason it was done (the one they showed) was simply that the mother decided not to have the child late in the game, and the state it was in allowed third trimester abortions (the footage was also from about 20 years ago or so). The show was about why third trimester abortions are bad.
The reason not to get it, is that some believe at that stage the fetus can feel the pain of being ripped apart, since it is mostly developed.
I feel for you, Crafter_Man. I am pro-choice, but with slight pro-life leanings. After the difficulties my wife and I had conceiving, finally doing so and having little CRB (see my link in my signature :)) started to sway me.
Starting to get into GD territory here, so I’ll just end now.
Aren’t partial birth abortions most commonly done in situations where continuing the pregnancy poses a huge health risk on the fetus, the mother, or both? I thought at that stage in the pregnancy, abortions tend to be somewhat restricted to “necessary” procedures. I didn’t know a mother could just decide at that point that she doesn’t want to go through with the pregnancy, since its somewhat of a complicated procedure…I could be wrong though…I don’t know all that much about it.
I’d just like to thank all of the posters thus far for keeping this GQ, and express a wish that the following posters would continue to keep up the good work. It gives me faith in humanity to see a matter like this discussed in a factual manner, without turning into a debate.
There was a thread over in Great Debates this summer on the topic, with some links to articles from both sides of the issue. Don’t know if the links still work, as they were in online periodicals, but IIRC they were cited enough in the thread itself to get the general picture.
As an aside, ‘partial-birth abortion’ is the term used by antiabortionists; the medical term is ‘intact dilation and extraction’.
The first thing to get straight is that the term “partial birth abortion” is political rather than medical. Many state bans on partial birth abortion (including the one in my state) define the term so broadly that it could be used to apply to all abortions.
What I think most people mean by “partial birth abortion” is a late term abortion in which the fetus is extracted through the birth canal. The reason why a woman would opt for this particular procedure is that it is usually the safest late term abortion method. Another option would be to have a pre-term Caesarian, but that is obviously more dangerous and more invasive.
In the interest of keeping this discussion factual, could I ask Crafter_Man to cite a source (preferably one without any political biases) for this piece of information?
I am certainly no expert on the subject, but this seems to be at odds with conventional wisdom. Not that conventional wisdom is a beacon of reliability…
I cannot speak to the biases of its authors, but it indicates that Crafter_Man is correct. I can see why this would be so. From my understanding, and i could be wrong, sometimes the woman must be dilated for up to three days. This is obviously much longer than the dilation that occurs during a regular birth. If the life of the mother were at risk, it would seem the Caesarean section route would be the easier one to take.
I have strong feelings about this particular procedure, although I’m doing my best not to let them show.
the use of quotation marks around the word defects needs an explanation, please. are you suggesting that the defects involved are minor? Like say, oh, the poor infants that have inadequate brain mass who will die after birth because they cannot sustain life outside of the womb?
Also, I’d like to see substantiation for the second part that “others, (probably a minority) do so because they realize very late in the game that they simply do not want to go through with the birth and delivery”. This goes against everything I’ve ever read on the subject.
FWIW, in North Carolina, abortion is illegal except during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy or when the pregnancy threatens the life or health of the woman. IIRC, Roe v. Wade makes provision for such a law, stating that the government has an increasing interest in the potential life of a fetus as time goes by.
Since states can legitimately outlaw abortion after a certain time, why all the hoo-ha at the federal level over “partial-birth” abortions in particular? It sounds to me like a mere attempt to get people outraged.
Does anyone know what the various state laws are on this? If all states prohibit late-term abortions except for the life or health of the woman, this really is a straw-man issue.
The majority of intact D&E (i.e., partial-birth abortion) occur in the latter portions of the second trimester.
Although the link is a pro-life site, the cites are from the former Surgeon General of the U.S., a Washington Post investigative report, and The American Medical News, which is a journal of the AMA.
As with so many issues such as this, I guess my assertion was technically an opinion, not a fact. So I apologize if it sounded otherwise.
Having said that, here are some statements to back up my “opinion”. (Shouldn’t this be in GD??)
“There are absolutely no obstetrical situations…which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother.” - Testimony of Pamela Smith, MD, in U.S. Senate Hearing Report 104-260 (Testimony of Nov. 17, 1995) p. 82.
(Note: Many medical experts have testified before congressional committees that “it is never necessary to kill a baby that has been almost entirely delivered to preserve the life or health of the mother.”)
“The procedure is never necessary to preserve a woman’s health.” - Dr. Warren Hern, in American Medical News, Nov. 20, 1995 p.3.
Dr. Martin Haskell of Kettering, OH has performed over 1000 partial-birth abortions. (BTW: Dr. Haskell’s clinic is about 2 miles from where I live. Gee, ain’t I lucky?) According to Dr. Haskell, he performs them “routinely” for non-medical reasons, and that 80% are “purely elective.”
In 1995, the American Medical Association Endorses a Ban on Partial-Birth Abortion (HR 1122), saying it is a “procedure we all agree is not good medicine.”
If you are correct and there is no medical reason to do the procedure as has been described, then WHY is it or has it EVER been done?
If there is NO medical reason - then WHY did it develope into a procedure? When a procedure is developed, the process, I’d think, would go something like “well, we have a pregnancy that has to end (for whatever reason at this point), the fetus is at 24 weeks, and is x size, our options are:…” and the ending procedure would be the safest way to get to the outcome, wouldn’t it???
Are you really suggesting that the doctors involved have some other agenda than the safest method of achieving the desired result?
wring, I think you are mixing up a couple of facets of the equation here. When you ask:
, what you are saying is basically true.
One side is saying, “it is rarely, if ever, medically necessary to have this procedure.”
Your question asks “Is the procedure the best available for a late second-trimester abortion, should a woman desire one?”
Both statments can be true. I don’t think there is necessarily an ulterior motive in the procedure itself. To take a coldly utilitarian look at it, it probably is the best way to remove the fetus at this stage of development.
I do think there is a political motive to make it appear that these abortions are necessary to save a mother’s life (Dr. Haskell’s statement is especially telling, as was the Washington Post’s conclusion). That is probably a more palatable political position than justifying the procedure on the grounds of a woman making a late decision or changing her mind.
