You've seperated groups of people into personhood and non-personhood based soley on whether they have the ability to reason. A living organism with uniquely human DNA. Fetus Infant Teenager Elderly Stroke Victim Mentally Ill Clone All are persons.
Look it up for yourself: Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited `(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment. - http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/partial_birth_abortion_Ban_act_final_language.htm The above link contains the complete text of the law signed by Bush. The others included articles published by the American Medical Association. Plugging your ears and shouting are not very compelling debate tactics. Give me an example of a case in which a 3rd trimester abortion is absolutely necessary to save the mother's life.
Again, I read your links; and while I don't agree with the procedure in and of itself, I understand the arguments against it (as they were presented to the courts which struck down the ban); that the ban limits the judgement of the physician to determine the safest procedure possible. Sure, it might not be medically necessary, but if there's significantly less risk to the mother by having a partial-birth abortion, I can understand why it would be struck down. When a ban like that is made, it's got to have patient rights squared away 100%, because if not; it's reduced to the initial argument of abortion's morality, which is what happened in the courts.
If there are going to be complications that are going to damage the mother (in a situation where the baby won't live) or would kill the mother (granted, I don't know what that would be, I just assume that situations like that do arise), then unfortunately, yes.
No, as I said I'm sure there is a great deal of gray area regarding when someone is a person and when they have the ability to reason. You asked me about specific examples so I did my best to answer them. I don't mean to seem like those answers apply to every single case. One thing I agree with the anti-abortionists on is that we should err on the side of life. We simply disagree on the degree to which it is necessary to err on the side of life. What do you mean by "uniquely"? The DNA is uniquely human (as opposed to uniquely animal), or the human DNA is unique (as opposed to other human DNA)? Is my arm a person? Would my twin or clone be a person? As best as I can figure out from your vague definition, a clone would most definitely NOT fall into the category of personhood.
If you truly read the links I provided, then you should know that partial birth abortions are not at all confined to such cases. I challenge you to present any case in which a late term abortion is necessary to save the mother's life or even to prevent severe physical harm, where a premature delivery or C-section would not be possible. A violent death by abortion certainly can't be considered an act of mercy toward the baby, no matter how deformed.
there's a huge difference between "necessary" and "safer". I think I know where you stand on that, and I respectfully disagree with you. I'm not going to search for the exact conditions because I've no idea what I'm looking for. But, Dr. James McMahon has stated that 9% of the 2000 partial birth abortions that he has performed were genuinely life threatening or preventing severe harm. I personally don't think that those 91% should be occurring, and an extremely well written law could be written to do something about it. If a very serious birth defect develops later in the pregnancy, where a D&E procedure is required; I leave it up to the physician's judgement as to whether it really is. But that's not what this is about, is it?
What does "required" mean here? If it's left up to the abortionist, the "well written law" would be meaningless, which is exactly what the pro-abortionists want. The only reasonable exception is one to protect the mother's life, as provided in the law signed by Bush.
You obviously don't know any 12 month olds. My kids favorite word at a year was "MINE!" This is the kernel of self awareness. Yes, I work in the medical profession. A two month old baby's body functions independently. He doesn't need a placenta (or life support of any other kind) to breathe, move, eat or function. He can't use a computer or dress himself, but he can "function."
No it isn't. A parrot can do that. There have been plenty of psychological tests to determine the approximate age of self-awareness and it's generally between 2-3 years of age. Knowing how to say one word is NOT self-awareness. If you left him on the street corner to live his own life, would he survive?
Sure: Early onset (before 21 weeks) severe pre-eclampsia or eclampsia. The only real treatment for this affliction is delivery. The neccesity for chemotherapy before the fetus reaches viability. (About 21 weeks or so.) A diagnosis of uterine cancer during pregnancy, requiring a hysterectomy. Placental abruption before viability, (the womyn would bleed to death if nothing was done.) Various bleeding disorders of pregnancy. Kidney failure due to diabetes or other illnesses, which does not respond to dialysis or other treatments. (I had a freind this happened to, her kidneys shut down, she went blind, she has gone into insulin shock with coma several times. Her BP was near eclamsia. She had to abort at about 17 weeks. She did eventually die, but continuing the pregnancy would have killed her and the fetus before even viable preterm delivery. The procedure gave her about 8 years should wouldn't have had otherwise.) I don't find late term abortion savory either. But, if the womyn will die, the fetus will also. So all her future children should not be given a chance, as well as her possible living children should be motherless? Makes no sense.
Maggie, I'm not sure that those examples qualify as late-term, and I don't believe that any of them would require a partial birth abortion. In any case, as I've already said, I support an exception to protect the mother's life.
After 18 weeks is considered "late term" in Obstetrics. MOST "late term" abortions (what few there are) are performed at the 16-20 week mark. And you asked for conditions where it would be neccesary to save the mother's life. That is what I provided. Sure, I believe that if the fetus is viable, an attempt should be made to save the fetus. But in some situations, like certain placental problems, a section is more dangerous than a C section. In fact in ALL situation sections are more dangerous. I beleive the death rate for sections is about 5 times higher than vag births.
As good a definition and explaination as I could find. There is NO obstetrical term "partial birth abortion."
Because the way the law is written, a second trimester abortion is made illegal if the physician deems it necessary to perform an intact d&e. That forces doctors to perform one type of procedure for 85-90% of second trimester abortions, regardless to the mothers safety. Also (and I'm going to have to use an analogy); If the mother decides she doesn't want the baby because of a birth defect discovered in her second trimester, and it doesn't threaten her life; she's allowed to have that abortion, by law. If the safest thing for the mother is to perform a partial birth abortion, the ban outlaws that. So the ban, in effect, can put the mother at more risk. By "required" I meant that the medical community that actually performs late, second trimester abortions, considers it the safest way.
I also learned that a number of intact dilation and evacuation abortions are performed on womyn whose fetuses have already died. HOWEVER, they are still considered abortions and included in abortion statistics. The number, like the number of D&X procedures, was not found.
In other words, "necessary" and "required" have nothing to do with true medical necessity. They really just mean the preferred method of elective abortion. Incidentally, the AMA said that partial birth abortion was "not good medicine" in 1997: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/amaletter.html If you read the text of the law, you'll see that it refers specifically to live partial delivery.
Yes, it's back to square one, in a sense. IMO, there is a middle ground here, congress just decided to get sneaky and slip vague terms with a broad scope to make it harder for abortions to occur. That's stupid, to me. They've got to know that this is one of the most highly contested issues in our country right now, and putting a ban that should have affected only a very small percentage of abortions, but was worded in such a way to affect a large portion of them, is so half-assed. Close the loophole that allows these kinds of abortions to occur, get the job done right; but don't try and close the loophole and create another one in your political favor.
