Quote:
|
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.
|
Politico, it appears we are using differing definitions of what constitutes a "well-developed" fetus. Your definition appears to address the size of the cranium alone, whereas I define it as involving the entire fetus including organ functioning. Please recall that one of the reasons for performing a D&X procedure is due to a severe form of hydrocephalus. I would also argue that a premature infant, weighing only one or two pounds may be viable, but no medical professional would consider it "well-developed." The evidence I presented rests on the definition that I have given you here, which does damage to your argument rather than mine.
Quote:
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/s...1439312,00.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.
|
I applaud you that you chose not to go the route of the "slippery slope" argument, but a strawman argument regarding two doctors in England does more to support my viewpoint than yours. Once again, a legal procedure was politicized by the religious beliefs of a vicar. Fortunately, the rule of law had precedence:
Quote:
|
Jim England, the chief crown prosecutor for West Mercia, said the doctors believed, in good faith, that there was a substantial risk the child would be seriously handicapped. "In these circumstances, I decided that there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that there should be no charges against either of the doctors," he said.
|
Politico, I believe we both agree that under rare circumstances the D&X procedure is a valid alternative. I think our only argument rests in who should define those circumstances. You support legislation at the Federal and State level, whereas I believe that politicians are not competent to make those decisions. I believe that their attempts to do so are simply pandering to a very vocal religious sector that wishes to impose their moral beliefs upon those that do not share the same beliefs.
I propose that politicians stay out of involving themselves in medical procedures. Each State has a medical oversight board that determines valid procedures and has the authority to sanction any doctor who chooses to disreguard specific prohibitions. I also strongly support that the patient and her doctor have greater knowledge of the need for a D&X than any legislative entity.
Politico, let us agree to leave this devastating decision to the patient, her doctor, and the State medical board, under which that doctor is regulated.