brighid

Babelfish,

I find it very disturbing that so many moderate people on both the pro-life and pro-choice side of things believes the myths about late-term abortion, or as it is improperly called “partial-birth” abortion and because of this the rabid pro-life movement has made “inroads” into restricting all other abortions. Unfortunately it is true that many clinics have closed and women don’t have easy access, or access at all to abortion even though it is legal to obtain one in the US.

Late-term abortion is a horrible and gruesome thing, even my own senator isn’t in favor of it because, as his letter to me stated “it is gruesome.” There are plenty of “gruesome” medical procedures that are done to save the life of men, women and children – take the use of forceps during delivery without the benefit of anesthesia … nothing like have a child literally ripped from your body while you are still able to feel it ripping your flesh apart! But we don’t ban medical procedures because they are gruesome, or even if they are unpleasant.

The VAST majority of late-term abortions are performed because of horrible defects in the child or because the health and life of the mother is severely endangered by continuing the pregnancy. How many women do you know WANT to make that sort of decision even under the worst of circumstances? How many women actually choose an abortion in the 8th or 9th month just because they don’t want to be inconvenienced by a baby? How many doctors do you know who will perform a D&X for a woman whose only motivation is she doesn’t want to care for the child? I doubt you will find even a handful and again just because there is a chance a doctor or a woman MAY make such a choice, or that some have already made the choice does not mean this is why the VAST majority of women (and often their partners) are faced with terminating a pregnancy so very late.

I have a friend who was recently told by her doctors (and I believe it was around 27 weeks) that her baby has severe spina bifida, mental retardation and another genetic disorder that I cannot recall at the moment. She is also having severe difficulties continuing the pregnancy. She has hypertension; gestational diabetes and her chance of preeclampsia are pretty high. Her health is pretty fragile and that doesn’t help her babies case much either. She and her husband have incurred many previous miscarriages and have been trying to get pregnant for about 6 years now. They were so excited when she got passed the dreaded 3-month mark where all her previous pregnancies terminated. They are now faced with the decision to terminate, or to continue and give birth to a child that may likely die shortly after birth. The pain they are facing is excruciating and when I hear the “selfish, murderous, whore” myth trumpeted by the Pro-life movement I want to scream. Where are the records of these women? Where is the verifiable evidence beyond the heresay of others? I know women like this likely exist, but why damn every woman because of those women or girls in the case of teenagers? Address those women/girls specifically and leave the option available for those who would rather never have to make this horrible, horrible choice amongst other horrible choices. Who are we to mandate that a woman must forfeit her life for that of her unborn child? If she so chooses then this is her rightful choice, but to coerce and forbid her is unconscionable (and it is unconscionable to coerce a woman into an abortion as well.)

They will likely choose to continue the pregnancy, but hopefully things won’t go down hill and require any sort of medical intervention that will make this painful time in their life even more painful.

I am sorry some women make that choice, but to take the life saving choice from others because someone might abuse it is not irrational, but immoral.

Brighid

Sabine Grant

Hello Brighid! I do not think anyone suggested that third trimester abortions be banned totaly. There is a difference between medicaly documented situations where life saving measures are necessary or the child may not even survive birth itself and choices of personal convenience.
It appears to me that we need to define when any abortion procedures result in inflicting undue pain to the fetus. Saline solution abortions and DandCs are not a myth. Have we considered ( as I asked previously)when the fetus feels physical pain? Should we or not consider it? Can a 20 weeks old fetus still be considered as unhuman and therefor subjected to physical suffering? do we draw the line and at what stages of the development of the human fetus?
You seem to have a heart about human sufferings... I am interested in your opinion.

brighid

Sabine,

Thank you for the very thoughtful questions. I do care very much about human suffering, as you seem to as well.

Is the pain of an unborn or dieing infant relevant to the actual procedure when it can be mitigated through anesthesia? In the new, but advancing field of fetal surgery the unborn fetus is anesthestized during the surgical procedure. I am not sure if this is an option some or any doctors provide to women during late-term abortions, but I would venture a guess that it could be available upon request OR it could be a provision built into any future legislation.

Edited to add: After reading the AMA article posted below I found that anesthesia is not currently offered in late-term abortion and I would then have to agree with what Sabine is proposing (as well as concur with the AMA) that it should be used.

Often in life threatening situations a woman doesn't get the benefit of anesthesia. In my labor and delivery this was the case. An emergency forcep delivery caused 3rd degree (and greater) perenial tearing in about 6 directions, some of the tearing went 2-3 inches into my inner thighs. I suppose this is what had to be done.

I think the pain and suffering of any person, born or unborn should be held to a bare minimum or eliminated IF possible. However, I don't think pain is a mitigating factor when ones life is threatened even if our best efforts should be given to reduce or eliminate that pain.

A majority of states have laws restricting late-term abortion to eliminate the possibility of a woman obtaining an abortion for anything other then the aforementioned reasons. 28 states have banned the D&X procedure completely.Only 10 out of 50 states have NO restrictions and no doubt the issue has been put to numerous votes in those states. Eventhough abortion is legal in this country many women are not able to obtain even early term abortions (where pain is not a factor) because of restrictions and or lack of access to abortion providers.

Approximately 83% of Planned Parenthoods offer NO abortion services and yet they are often attacked by Pro-Life campaigns seeking to shut down their operations. They fail to realize that they offer free and reduced health services like annual pap smears (that help to save the lives of women), mamograms,adoption services including legal referrals, pre and post natal care and other valuable services that improve the lives of millions of women and children.

The selfish woman myth is used to manipulatively appeal to the emotions of the masses while deflecting from the reasons why late-term abortive procedures (such as labor induction and D&E).

The focus SHOULD remain on the living, breathing women and THEIR actual rights as human beings while at the same time doing our best to respect the evolving rights of the fetus during different stages of development. We should NEVER place the rights of a blastocyst, zygote or fetus above the rights of a fully human mother.

Here is an article about the legal and ethical issues of late-term abortion, including the AMA's disapproval of the D&X procedure and a discussion about the inconclusive data regarding the demographics behind late-term abortion (some of the data does support that some women do use late-term abortion for non-health reasons or major fetal deformities)

A quote: " Most clinicians would argue for maintaining the option of late pregnancy termination to save the life of the mother, which is an extraordinarily rare circumstance. Maternal health factors demanding pregnancy termination in the periviable period can almost always be accommodated without sacrificing the fetus and without compromising maternal well-being. The high probability of fetal intact survival beyond the periviable period argues for ending the pregnancy through appropriate delivery. In a similar fashion, the following discussion does not apply to fetuses with anomalies incompatible with prolonged survival. When pregnancy termination is performed for these indications, it should be performed in as humane a fashion as possible. Therefore, intact D&X should not be performed even in these circumstances. "

Also " Fetal Considerations.—The fetus is capable of experiencing pain to an increasing degree as gestation advances. Prohibiting elective terminations beyond 22 weeks would minimize the fetal pain and suffering associated with termination of pregnancy. Minimizing fetal pain and suffering should also be more strongly considered in cases of late-term terminations for fetal anomalies."

<a href="http://www.ama-assn.org/special/womh/library/readroom/vol_280a/cv80000x.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ama-assn.org/special/womh/library/readroom/vol_280a/cv80000x.htm</a>

Some other data provided by the CDC:

During 1995, approximately 53% of reported legal induced abortions were obtained at less than or equal to 8 weeks of gestation, and approximately 86% were obtained at less than 13 weeks (Table_6). Approximately 15% of abortions were performed at the earliest weeks of gestation (less than or equal to 6 weeks), approximately 17% at 7 weeks, and approximately 21% at 8 weeks (Table_7). Few abortions were provided after 15 weeks of gestation -- approximately 4% of abortions were obtained at 16-20 weeks, and 1.4% were obtained at greater than or equal to 21 weeks (Figure_4; Table_6).

Almost all (98%) abortions were performed by curettage and less than 1% by intrauterine saline or prostaglandin instillation (Table_8). Hysterectomy and hysterotomy were used in only a few cases: less than 0.01% of abortions were performed by using these methods.

<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00053774.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00053774.htm</a>

Brighid

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]

edited to remove comment that was not supported by data.

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

Jagged

Source: <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html" target="_blank">Fox News</a> (Planned Parenthood, National Center for Health Statistics) (emphasis mine)

When you're talking third trimester abortion you are talking about approx 100 abortions in this country per year TOTAL.

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Jagged Little Pill ]</p>

babelfish

Believe me, the pro-life movement knows EXACTLY what it's doing. They refer to this as a "wedge." The "partial-birth" abortion bills they keep trying to get passed are, in their minds, simply a first step in making all abortions illegal.


You've made a very good point here. The focus on partial birth abortions by the pro-life movement is completely unsupported by evidence of any kind. Other than the gruesome pictures that keep showing up on the internet, what statistics support their contention that the majority of late-term abortions are done simply for convenience sake? I've never heard ANY solid evidence for this. I suspect there isn't any, because if there were, it would be utilized to it's fullest by the opponents of abortion.

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: babelfish ]</p>

Jagged

I have a good e-friend (who I hope will not mind me sharing this without mentioning his name) who I met on another board who has a child with severe cerebral palsy to the extent that he needs care around the clock, 7 days a week. He cannot do anything for himself other than breathe and make noises. He cannot crawl, walk, talk, or eat and must be watched at all times for fear that he will choke himself.

Now other than this being a horribly tragic story, I was amazed at the advice given to my friend by *doctors* at the time of his son's birth. And the advice was: let the child starve to death. Now he had already nearly died while being born and was not expected to live much longer even if cared for, but his parents could not bear to follow thru with the medical advice and the child is now 6 years old.

Now I have no idea what I would do in a situation like that, tho I can't see that this is much of a life for the child or his parents, who are completely exhausted both physically and financially from the burden of his care.

What surprised me the most, tho, was that doctors are (legally) able to give such advice in this country. Certainly you could make an easier case that letting an already-born child starve is more serious than even a late-term abortion. I have no way of knowing, but I doubt that I just happened to encounter the only case of this sort in the country. So my question is *WHY* have I never heard a word about this sort of thing from an anti-choice group?

I think that people would not be so quick to accept that such cases were the result of selfish, murderous women--such a drastic measure *must* have involved extreme circumstances. And I also suspect if anyone took a look at the real stories behind late-term abortions, they would find out how seriously some anti-choice groups have been deliberately spreading misinformation.

In the end I find myself leaning toward the idea that the most merciful choice may very well have been to let the child die. If we categorically ban late-term abortions in ALL cases, are the true interests of these children and their families really served?

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Jagged Little Pill ]</p>

brighid

I don’t think that advice is all that uncommon, but I don’t know. I was watching a show the other day about fetal surgery for children diagnosed with spina bifida and one comment a doctor interviewed made was children like this were often sent home to die. I cannot recall if he commented at all about not feeding the child.

I am not sure about the circumstances of your friends case, but the cerebral palsy could have been caused by the difficult delivery and the child was perfectly healthy prior to that time. I know a woman whose daughter has cerebral palsy directly due to the circumstances of her delivery. She is unable to walk, or talk, has a shunt and other complications. Her husband left her immediately upon finding the baby was handicapped.

I do not know how I feel about letting a child damaged in this way die from starvation, but I understand the extreme difficulties parents face because of it. I think that is a choice that must be left to the individual or family and the doctors, especially given the extreme cost of medical care. It is certainly a very difficult ethical dilemma.

I do not support a complete ban on late-term abortion, but I do support restrictions past the point of viability and that point must be determined on an individual basis with no set point. I think a woman/parents have the right to choose whether or not they are capable of handling the medical, financial and emotional responsibility of raising a child that is severely handicapped or has a disease that will not allow it to survive long at all. Again, this is private decision that should ONLY be made between interested parties and medical professionals.

I don’t see the vocal Pro-Life movement doing much to aide the born children who suffer fates much worse then the temporary (or non-existent) pain caused by abortion. I also don’t see many of them working to eliminate the reasons why MILLIONS of women each year find it necessary to terminate a pregnancy at any stage such as domestic violence, inequitable pay especially among minority women, universal health care, affordable and respectable day care, welfare reform that helps rather than harms (such as with the current “reformed” system) and the lack of proper sexual education and access to birth control. Abortion will NEVER be eliminated in the legal or illegal sense. The fact is that pregnancy adversely affects millions of women a year. These women are married, professional, unwed, young, mature, healthy, sick, rich, poor, battered, white, black, Hispanic and everything in between.

Eliminating abortion is no different then attempting to put a band-aid on a gapping wound. Let’s address the REASONS why so many women feel they have no better choice then to terminate a pregnancy, correct those problems and a drastic reduction in abortion will be seen (along with reductions in crime, poverty, and domestic violence) and an increase in prosperity, health and well being for people in this country.

Brighid

babelfish

Oh no Brighid, you're not one of those evil socialist liberals are you? You know, the ones who are running the media and have taken over all our fine (formerly Christian) universities?

The way it seems to me, the whole reason that abortion exists is because motherhood is so devalued. Lip service is paid to motherhood and apple pie in this country, but one suspects most people don't appreciate the enormity of it. Once you have your baby, you're on your own, girlfriend. What, you want welfare? Get out there and work you lazy bum! What are you doing, sitting on your ass and eating bon-bons in front of the TV all day? Can't find a job that'll put a roof over your head, food in the fridge, plus pay for daycare? Put that baby up for adoption if you can't handle it!

Meanwhile, millions of women are living in poverty and squalor. Because nobody appreciates how difficult it is to be responsible for another human being 24/7.

Women don't have abortions because they're inhuman, selfish monsters. They have abortions because they want to be good mothers, and they know what it takes, and they know they can't provide that at this point in their lives.

Amen.

brighid

Sista, you know it … but wait I wouldn’t want to be accused of using my intelligence as a weapon!

The vocal Pro-Life movement seem to loathe women and buy into the whole “Eve” mythology of our fallen, evil, whorish natures and therefore women deserve to be punished for their “promiscuity.” The vocal Pro-Life movement always seems to forget that it men are involved in impregnating women and it takes TWO to tango. They also seem to neglect the needs of children and mothers once that child is actually born. Hypocrites the vocal majority are – Hypocrites.

Brighid

winstonjen

I couldn't agree more. And remember, "The moral majority are neither."