Quote:
|
This is where Politico and I depart dramatically. His claim that "partial birth abortions are performed exclusively on well-developed fetuses, a large number of which are viable human babies" simply cannot be supported by the facts.
|
Elphaba claims, as I have quoted above, that it is not true that partial birth abortions are performed exclusively on well-developed fetuses. I suppose this depends on your definition of “well-developed”, but Elphaba’s following several paragraphs provide rather damning evidence for her claim above.
First we find this statement:
Quote:
|
D&Xs are not performed during the first three months of pregnancy.
|
Elphaba has acknowledged, at least, that partial birth abortions are never carried out on fetuses that are relatively undeveloped. The fetus’ large head size is what determines whether D & X is necessary, so the procedure, by definition, is only performed on babies with developed heads, i.e. developed babies.
Elphaba has the following to say about second trimester D & X procedures:
Quote:
- 2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including:
* She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester.
* There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy.
* The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester.
|
The first reason cited here is just a case of a mother who waited too long before seeking an abortion. If the fetus is not yet viable, then it stands to reason that a D & E procedure could be performed in place of the D & X procedure. If the fetus’ head is already prohibitively large for D & E, then I do not support allowing the abortion, as we are, once again, dealing with a well-developed fetus.
The second reason cited can be a legitimate concern, but also a problematic one. If the mother is suffering from depression, for example, is that justification for aborting her baby? Again, I draw the line at the point of viability. It is permissible for a mother to decide to receive a D & E procedure on an unviable fetus in order to relieve mental or physical problems, but the mother should not be permitted to kill a viable baby still inside her under the same justification.
Thirdly, if the fetus is dead, by all means, the woman may end her “pregnancy”. As for the badly malformed fetus argument, however, take a look at this well-known anecdote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...439312,00.html – Essentially, a late-term abortion was carried out on a woman in England because her fetus was “seriously handicapped”: it had a cleft lip. So, I ask Elphaba, is genetic retardation a serious genetic defect? What about autism, or paraplegia, or missing a limb? This is a very, very, very dangerous road to go down. I won’t turn this into a slippery slope argument, suffice to say that this justification has already been badly abused and that having a defective fetus is insufficient justification for aborting a viable human child.
Quote:
- 3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy and an elective D&X is prohibited by law. The most common justifications at that time are:
* The fetus is dead.
* The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
* The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
* The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.
|
The first two justifications here are good ones: in either situation, a D & X procedure should be allowed.
The third case here is the most difficult one, but there is a better alternative: in the third trimester, when the fetus is viable, the woman could receive a little bit of extra dilation and the scissors/suction procedure could be omitted. This procedure is known in some circles as a “premature birth”. This method of aborting a pregnancy involves removing the fetus from the mother without killing the baby. Fetus survival rates under this method are far higher than in D & X procedures. There is always an alternative to D & X, even in this, the most difficult case.
Finally, we have this category of fetuses that will surely die after birth. So long as this category is narrowly defined as being “fetuses that will certainly die within a week of their birth”, or something along these lines, I wouldn’t object to it. But really, what harm is there in asking a mother to carry this sort of fetus to term?
As we have seen, there is always an alternative to D & X. Either the mother can receive a D & E procedure (if the fetus is not well-developed) or labor can be induced prematurely, resulting in a live birth and greatly increasing the fetus’ chances of survival. Thus, I remain committed to the principle that partial-birth abortions should only be performed if the mother’s life is in danger. (Yes, Elphaba, I agree that it’s ok to abort dead fetuses, as well.)