There is no excuse EVER for partial birth abortion. The procedure is NEVER used to protect the life of the mother. The procedure itself is very stressful on the mothers physical body. If the mother were in such imminent danger, why wouldn't they just c-section? And you wouldn't have to kill the fetus either?
27 comments
Augias, could you provide support for that? I can't imagine why using D&X to remove a dead 20 week old fetus would be illegal, especially in countries like China that really don't seem to have a problem with abortion.
Partial-birth abortion is not a medical term. The person I was responding to said that the procedure, which she termed dilation and extraction, was, without any qualification, illegal in every other country.
I know of very few groups that in support of ever aborting after 20 weeks, and I don't think I know of any group that supports D&X on anyone of 20 weeks gestation unless both the mother and child are in deadly danger...but I guess it is easier to fight over something that is a non-issue, instead of dealing with the real issue of preventing the reasons for abortions-lack of money, lack of adoptive parents, lack of education, lack of healthcare, etc...
allright, let me rephrase what I wanted to say before:
augias #18148
I mean that it probably is illegal in other european countries, and that it never was legal to perform an abortion with that technique in Germany.
Wow this is the first time i agree with a fundie here. Partial birth abortion isn't less risky for a mother than a c-section.(/is a medical intern). The alleged "medical reasons" don't exist at all -in my opinion- women do it because they don't want the fetus to be born, plain and simple...and i think it's a very mean thing to do to a fetus that is able to feel pain (i'm pro-choice if we are talking about early pregnancies). BTW, what Julian mentioned is an example of "non-abortion" pregnancy interruption, a VERY different thing...it's a completely llegitimate medical procedure, even in countries where abortion is illegal (like my country, Chile)
MadSerena - my choir teacher was married and wanted a child. When she was five months pregnant, her doctor informed her that the fetus had severe sirenomelia. If she carried the pregnancy to term, she would put her life as risk only to deliver a baby that would suffer for a few minutes before suffocating to death.
Sierra: don't get me wrong...i'm not against any form of late pregancy interruption, i'm against a specific form of pregnancy interruption. I'm not for causing innecesary suffering or risk to pregnant women, their lives (and life's quality) are very precious to me. But i can't see any benefit in "partial birth abortion" (in women's health) if you compare it with other forms of preg interruption...and this procedure can be used as a covered infanticide of healthy babies. BTW, I'm just stating my opinion, i'm not judging people with different POV nor i feel i own the truth
MadSerena, you have to understand the only other options available in this case.
Madserena, you're right, D&X is never done because the baby is dead or the mother's life is threatened. All women who have D&X's have been planning to abort since the test came back positive, and decided to wait so long because they want the baby to die a painful, horrible death. Really.
i know someone who had to have an emergency c-section at 24 weeks because her pregnancy began attacking her body. unfortunately, her son did not survive. since the delivery happened before the baby was at 26 weeks, it wasn't considered a "viable" birth so it was listed as a partial birth abortion. maybe you should actually research something before running off at the mouth about it.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
