The Supreme Court yesterday agreed to weigh the constitutionality of a ban on partial-birth abortion.
I generally steer clear of abortion topics because they're almost always pointless. You either think it's okay or you don't. If you're a moderate, the issue tends to be where to draw the line, but even then the lines don't move much.
But the bloviating over this case threatens to obscure the underlying facts. So I'll do my best to lay it out.
WHAT'S AT STAKE
The claims: Pro-lifers will have you believe they're trying to put an end to a horrifying procedure that kills thousands of babies every year merely for the mother's convenience. Pro-choicers will have you believe that if we restrict this procedure, it's only a matter of time before abortion itself is outlawed.
The facts: Late-term abortions (not all of which are "partial-birth" procedures) are exceedingly rare. In 2002 there were 1.5 million abortions. Only 320 occurred after the 26th week of pregnancy. There is not an epidemic of heartless women killing their babies at the last moment. Conversely, restricting this procedure will not significantly harm abortion rights.
MEDICAL NECESSITY
The claims: Pro-lifers say there is no medical reason for the procedure. Pro-choicers say there are times when it must be used.
The facts: The case filings are full of testimony from doctors and patients outlining why late-term abortions are medically necessary. On the other hand, pro-lifers may have a point if they argue that there are alternative procedures that achieve the same medical end without the gruesomeness of partial-birth.
THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL
The claims: Pro-lifers say they are trying to outlaw a particularly gruesome and unnecessary form of abortion. Pro-choicers say they prefer that the procedure be rare, but that the definition of "partial-birth abortion" in the bill is so broad that it could outlaw procedures used as early as the 12th week, and there is no exception for the health of the mother.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Michael J. West
Huzzah and well-spoken, sir.
2 - Bliffle
What is "partial birth" about "partial birth abortion"? Is the child/fetus/whatever actually exiting the birth canal at the time? Why is it called "partial birth"?
3 - Ebony Ghost
You got it Bliffle. It's a particularly gruesome procedure that probably never occurrs except for in the case of cross species fertilization. The people who would have you believe that it happens 20 to 30 times a day are definately up to minding other people's business. Hell, the vast majority of the folks with their nose in a pregnant couples' private business will never become pregnant themselves. The whole thing is a waste of time and resources.
4 - Bing
Yes Bliffle the child is actually exiting the birth canal.
What happens during a partial birth abortion is that the physician starts to deliver the baby to the point where the babies body is outside the woman and the head is almost out. At this point the doctor then inserts an instrument into the woman into the babies skull killing it. It is not a fetus. It is a baby. It has all the organs and appendages that you and I have at this point and is capable of feeling sensations.
Now I am not going to say it happens all the time. That is not my argument. My argument for bannign it is that it should never happen unless there is no other way to save the mother's life.
Pro-choicers would have you believe every abortion is a decision that pits the mother's life versus the babies and this is just not hte case.
5 - Druxxx
This proceedure should never happen unless absolutely necessary. The problem is the writers of these "partial-birth" abortion bans never leave room for exceptions.
6 - Dave Nalle
According to the data I saw your figures on partial birth abortion are off by an order of magnitude. It's .2%, not .02% and about 3000 a year, not 300. And those figures come from pro-abortion sources, I might add.
Dave
7 - Sean Aqui
Dave, my figures were taken from the link, which cites CDC data. Of course, the link is mainly about the lack of decent statistics on the subject, so this could be an example.
Even if you're correct, though, I'm not sure it affects the point I was making. We're still talking about a procedure that is *not* used in 99.8% of all abortions.
8 - Dave Nalle
Quite right, Sean. Even my numbers are very low. Since yours came from the CDC I wonder if my source was deliberately inflating them 10x. Wouldn't put it past many involved in this debate.
Dave
9 - CC
Partial birth is actually not a medical term. It was invented by pro-lifers to throw emotional language into the situation- a common tactic. Hence the term pro-abortion. I don't think anyone is actually pro-abortion unless that person is seriously disturbed, IMO.
#4 It already does not happen unless there is any other choice- do you think a woman actually carries a fetus for 8+ months (feels it kicking inside her & everything) and then says, "Oh crap, I knew there was something I forgot to do 6 months ago, let me go get an abortion now." Pretty ridiculous. Let's say for the sake of argument that scenerio actually happened. You would be hard-pressed to find a doc who would perform it. This ban is a waste of time & money. What is actually going on here is the language of the procedure in this ban was deliberately made so vague- it will make room for potential outlaw of all second-trimester even some first-trimester procedures. Another common stealth tactic of pro-lifers.
10 - CC
[Pro-choicers would have you believe every abortion is a decision that pits the mother's life versus the babies and this is just not hte case.]
Not true, pro-choicers fully realize there are many reasons women get abortions, not all for life or death situations. Sorry, but not a fair or accurate observation.
11 - Bing
Did I say pro-choicers don't realize there are other reasons women get abortions? No I did not.
What I said was they would have you believe that every case is between a mother's or a child's life. They know most abortions are more casual than that and merely involving the mother not wishing to alter her lifestyle but instead murdering their baby. They realize this but they also realize that if they frame the abortion debate as every case being a vital matter of women's health they will garner more support for thier point of view as many ignorant people will buy this line of bullshit.
The pro-choice crowd always screams "they're taking away women's rights" and "they want to tell women what to do with thier own bodies"
They scream these thinsg so people won't consider the bottom line in the abortion debate. Either a woman has an abortion or she doesn't, either there is a baby kiled or there isn't. That's the ultimate reality of abortion. Pro-lifers have no desire to take away women's rights it's just that we have consideration for the baby inside the woman while pro-choicers do not. We also have consideration for the woman. If the woman gets pregnant but doesn't want a child she has an abortion. This results in killing a baby. However if she doesn't want it but gives birth she may give it up for adoption her nine months of inconvenience are over. So it seems as if the 2 negatives are the mother being inconvencied versus killing the child I'd say the mother being inconvenciend is the lesser evil.
It is also a lie that pro-lifers want to control women's bodies. Most pro-lifers don't really care what women who aren't pregnant do with thier own bodies as long as they're not harming nayone else.
I guess the bottom line is that pro-choicers don't value life as much as pro lifers. But pro-choicers won't admit it. They rationalize infanticide by using symantics and saying "well it's not really a person, it's a fetus."
12 - CC
I object to your mischaracterization of pro-choicers motives & beliefs & demonizing who they are as people. You claim they are the ones who use stealth tactics & deception to frame this debate, without being wise to the fact that pro-lifers do this as well. All your posts are evidence to that fact.
Just because you try to claim a certain point is the bottom line does not make it so.
13 - Bing
Sure it does.
If pro-choicers were allowed to have thier way what would be the ultimate result? Many babies would be killed for any reason ranging from saving the mother's life to "I just don't feel like having a baby because then I won't be able to go to the dance club and find more random guys to bang every Saturday night."
If pro-lifers had thier way what would be the ultimate result? Babies lives would be taken only to save the mom's life and just maybe we'd have a few selfish woman who otherwise would have had an abortion deliver their babies and gain a better understanding and more respect for human life and what it means to give that gift to another human being.
14 - Dave Nalle
abies lives would be taken only to save the mom's life and just maybe we'd have a few selfish woman who otherwise would have had an abortion deliver their babies and gain a better understanding and more respect for human life and what it means to give that gift to another human being.
Which they would gain from a life of inescapable poverty, abusing, neglecting and abandoning those children to grow up without a parent and have babies as teenagers themselves. Yeah. That'll show them. Let's give them a life sentence and damage society as well just because they got pregnant. After all, one mistake deserves a lifetime of suffering.
Dave
15 - Bennett
#4
"What happens during a partial birth abortion is that the physician starts to deliver the baby to the point where the babies body is outside the woman and the head is almost out. At this point the doctor then inserts an instrument into the woman into the babies skull killing it."
What a load of made-up crap THAT is!
Almost all births are headfirst. Feet first is known as "breech" and most physicians would rather do a cesarian birth rather than deal with the potential complications of a breech birth.
Nice try, but your bottom line is bullshit.
16 - TA Dodger
After all, one mistake deserves a lifetime of suffering.
Even this is overstating. The better way to say it might be: One accident deserves a lifetime of suffering.
After all, people using birth control who get pregnant didn't make a mistake, they're just very unlucky.
In the case of a "partial birth abortion" the woman seemingly chose to carry on with the pregnancy and only changed her mind because an abortion was necessary to preserve her health or to prevent the birth of a child who would likely not live past infancy. The congenital defect in the fetus isn't a mistake either, it's just unfortunate.
17 - Dave Nalle
Bennett, yes most live births are head-first deliveries, but in the case of partial birth abortion the procedure is to deliver in the breech position by manipulation if necessary, because that gives access to the soft underside of the skull before the head emerges. That's just the way it's done.
And as for PBA's being used as birth control, that's overwhelmingly NOT how this particular form of abortion is used. That's one of the things that sets it apart from more standard abortions, because it's almost always done for primarily medical reasons.
Dave
18 - CC
#13 Sorry Bing, I meant although its YOUR particular bottom line (as well as other pro-lifers), it does not make it the bottom line for the rest of us, even for those who agree with your belief that a fetus is a human life. Most of us understand it is MUCH more complex of an issue than that...no matter how much you stamp your foot & claim otherwise. Furthermore, just repeating something over and over does not make it so.
{Banging different guys on a Saturday night}
Careful- you're starting to show the true motivations of many pro-lifers. Why not just stick with 'we need to save the babies!'
19 - Charlotte Spring
Sorry folks, I'm looking for answers and not getting any. Why are partial birth abortion performed? What is the medical reasons? There must be solid reasons that a woman in her late months of pregnancy would have this done, no medical doctor is preforming this without good just cause. Please help me understand.
20 - Dave Nalle
Charlotte, if you read the other article here on BC about partial birth abortion it has a full explanation of the reasons for the procedure.
Dave
21 - Charlotte Spring
Dave, thank you, new to BC and just plain re-searching, I need all the help I can get. This issue haunts me.
Charlotte
22 - Norm Yerke
When Our Lord gave the Ten Commandments to Moses which included the Fifth Commandment, which is "Thou Shall Not Kill". God did not say you should not Kill except in the cases of rape incest or to save a Mother's life. He said you shall not kill...period. There is never a reason to kill a baby. Firstly because of this Commandment, but secondly because of Natural Law, you "can not do an evil to bring about a good".
Robin Hood was lauded because he robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. Having said this he was not right for the same Natural Law.
One final point partial birth abortions are performed at a minimum 2000 times per year and probably closer to 5000. These statistics are from the Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood's research arm)!
23 - Sean Aqui
The best argument for keeping this procedure legal is hydrocephaly and other cases such as the ones I linked to, where it is discovered (for instance) that the baby's brain is developing outside the skull. The former can make childbirth fatal, and the latter has no chance of surviving.
I don't know how anyone can read such cases and not recognize that any legislation about abortion *must* contain an exception for the life and health of the mother.
24 - Dave Nalle
Not just the life and health of the mother, but the quality of life and health of the child as well.
Dave
25 - CC
#22 Well, Mr. Yerke, if you're saying its wrong just b/c god says it, IMO its a pretty flimsy argument. Any others?
There are other forms of morality that do not look at things so black and white. It does not come down simply to the Old Testament of the bible & Natural Law. Although it is great that you are looking into sources other than biblical(not necessarily a bad thing), I challenge you to look further & check out Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Reasoning & this... Only very few of us ever attain Level Six (MLK, Ghandi, Christ, the Budda). If anyone has other sources to cite for moral reasoning- please share.