[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Rinoa I wasn't debating against a normal abortion. I was making a case against partial birth abortion, in which case they already have to induce labor. The abortion has the same amount of strain on the mother as simply giving birth, and in some cases more because the baby sits in the birth canal while the doctor 'takes care of it' Maybe not all women do it simply because they do not feel like having a baby, but I guarantee that some of the women that get these abortions just had a hard time making up their mind in the first two trimesters. Also, would you say that they should be allowed a partial birth abortion without a medical reason? I've never actually heard of a single medical condition in which partial birth was necessary and that the mother was likely to be harmed because of it.

A midwifery web site quotes Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2 He wrote that "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. Some cases are not severe. After birth, shunts can be installed to relieve the excess fluid on the newborn's brain. A pre-natal method of removing the excess fluid is being experimentally evaluated. However, some cases are much more serious. "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." In comparison, the average adult skull is about 7 to 8 inches in diameter. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it cannot achieve consciousness. The physician may elect to perform a D&X by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. Or, he might elect to perform a type of caesarian section. The former kills a fetus before birth; the latter allows the newborn to die after birth, on its own. A caesarian section is a major operation. It does expose the woman to a greatly increased chance of infection. It "poses its own dangers to a woman and any future pregnancies." 2 Allowing a woman to continue in labor with a severely hydrocephalic fetus is not an option; an attempted vaginal delivery would kill both her and the fetus.

D&X procedure (a.k.a.Partial Birth Abortion) - All sides

It is rare, of course -- as is the procedure. As for women who "can't make up their minds," I don't believe that is the case, because I don't believe that any reputable obstetrician would agree to perform the procedure just because. If there were such a doctor, he should lose his license.

The procedure has a medical purpose, and like any surgery should only be performed when that medical purpose would be served by the surgery. I'd be against unnecessary heart bypass surgery, too -- but I'd also want that to come from education and doctor oversight, not from simple legislation that might constraina doctor at exactly the wrong moment from performing a procedure that would benefit the patient.

Quote by: Rinoa And when it's human lives on the line, legislation is necessary. You do not have the right to deny something life simply because you want it out of your body. Take it out, and let it have the chance to live.

First: I really don't mean to be a jerk, but it is not a human life until after it is born -- before that, legally it is a parasite, a part of the mother. After it is born, it has the right to live. Second, if there is no medical reason for the child to be killed, no, the procedure shouldn't be done -- but I don't believe it is.

Quote by: Rinoa Many people that are 'for' this process don't understand exactly what it is that occurs during a partial birth. Describing it in specific terms is the best way to promote that understanding. I wasn't trying to be gross.

You could have educated me with a link. You were trying to make me feel sorry for the baby. I don't.

Quote by: Rinoa The symantecs of fetus vs. baby were being questioned. To word the question better, How is it not a baby that is being killed? If it has the ability to live on its own(which I've proven it does) why do we need to stop it from doing so? What advantage does it give the mother?

I don't know what advantage it gives the mother; I am not the doctor. I simply believe this decision should be left up to the people involved. It is an extraordinary decision, made under extraordinary circumstances -- there is no way to make a fair an dequitable law that covers extraordinary circumstances, so I'm against the law. I am not supporting or promoting partial birth abortion, simply pointing out that the law should reflect reality: a ban on PBA is simply a political move, not a necessary or useful one. No babies or fetuses are killed unnecessarily in the third trimester; if they are, the doctor in question should be censured accordingly. There is no need to prevent the potential genuine uses of the procedure in order to stop people who misuse it -- simply stop the people who misuse it.

Quote by: Rinoa As for the whole leaving the baby alive while finishing the birthing process...Completely different from finishing rape. If she needs the baby out, she can have it removed(and the 'parasite' stopped) without killing it. That's like killing the rapist to get him out. If there was any other way to stop him, shouldn't that be tried first? During partial birth labor has already been induced, she has to push the baby out regardless of whether or not it is still alive. It remaining alive does not stress her body any more than pushing it out dead. In fact, the baby remains in the canal longer if it is aborted in this manner because the doctor has to hold it there in order to kill it. The only thing that is actually affected by partial birth is the life of the child. The baby is out of her in the same time either way. Also, if the issue is that the baby is taking from her body, and she needs the nutrients, why not just cut the unbilical cord? That comes out before the neck does, and stops the baby from relying on her. Effectively ridding her of the parasite quicker.

Same answer as above: I don't believe the procedure is done when it is not medically necessary. That being the case, the law against the procedure is useless, and potentially harmful.