posted
I cases such as were described, I don't see how it crushing the baby's skull before the "birth" helps the health of the mother any more than bringing it out and allowing it to breathe.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: In any case, it's obvious that in this doctor's case, most of the abortions weren't medically necessary. 30,000 from one guy?
The 30,000 were over her whole career and included all types of abortions.
edit: I was wrong; she has performed 30,000 surgical abortions. Surgical abortions are done when the fetus is at or older than 6 weeks. Before that, medical abortions, using several different types of drugs, are done. I'm not sure what the ratio is between medical and surgical abortion, but it seems like surgical abortions would be more numerous than medical because a lot of people wouldn't even know they are pregnant until the window of opportunity for medical abortion has passed.
And I wanted to say that I agree with what ak and rivka said.
posted
Its much too easy to get an abortion, though. Too many people use it as a way to escape consequences of their actions without understanding what it will do to them. I can't stand to tell my parents I had unprotected sex, so I'm going to have doctors kill a living thing in me that might one day be my child. And they can do it just like that. No counseling, no nothing is required.
I'm pro-life. slippery slope arguments I can understand-what I can't understand is how they justify the risk that we might be killing someone. Wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution, to be sure that we didn't kill someone, then to err on the other side to be sure women could not have to give birth, as many pro-lifers want to?
But even given that some abortions are justified (medical, rape, all that) how far to we take it? An irresponsible teenage girl who is just doing it to avoid having to admit she messed up to her parents? We at LEAST need some basic guidelines of when it is allowable, and when it isn't, and couselling. Because an abortion is going to affect a lot more than their bodies, and they need to know that before they go in, and talk about it afterward, rather than having it be treated like a regular operation.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the abortion clinic I volunteered, counseling is required of all patients who come for an abortion. This may not be the case at every single clinic, but it's more likely than not. I sat in on several counseling sessions. They followed a specific agenda, making sure the patient wanted the abortion, discussing their emotional support, going through birth control options, etc.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It does no good to take a punitive approach, outlawing abortion and then leaving the girls and babies with nothing, no resources, no health care, no loving family to raise them. If you want to talk about cruelty to children, let's talk about what it's like to grow up in poverty with parents who would rather you had never been born.
Have you asked these children who grow up in poverty if they would rather be dead? Have you asked someone who survived an abortion attempt if they would rather it had been successful.
I must object vehemently to the assertion that girls and women in crisis pregnancies are left out in the cold with nowhere to turn.
That's just plain insulting to all the people like me who volunteer time and send money to help people in crisis pregnancies. I have spent my own money buying diapers and crib sheets, and whatever else was needed to support a young woman whose family turned her out. I've hugged these women, cried with them, prayed with them. Shared their joy in their children.
The organizations I support care for them through their entire pregnancy, and no they don't abandon them when the baby is born either. They are there to help them find jobs if need be, to help them with childcare alternatives, to help them apply for WIC and other programs to help support them and their babies.
We ARE out there doing everything we can for these mothers. We ARE putting our money where our mouth is. It's easy to dismiss something by saying "Oh, but nobody would care for those children, it's better just to let people keep having abortions."
As someone who grew up believing she wasn't wanted, that her birth had broken up a family and she was resented by everyone, and having lived through poverty as a child, our house was foreclosed and cars repossessed, I can tell you I believe it's still better to be alive.
How about an experiment? Let's let the babies live, and ask them when they become adults if they'd rather be alive or not.
Mother Theresa, when meeting with Bill Clinton in the Rose Garden while he was president summed it up beautifully when she said "Please don't kill the child. Give me the child. I want the child."
There are people everywhere that will step up and do what's necessary to support mothers and babies. I will do it. If I have to spend every spare dime I have and every spare minute I have volunteering I will, if it means saving those children.
And not only will I do it - I AM doing it! There is no place in the US a mother and her young baby will starve to death, not if she asks for help. There are many, many places to turn to for help. The churches will help her, the goverment will help her with programs like WIC and food stamps and government housing. Welfare is there for mothers of young children.
Am I saying a welfare existence is desirable? Of course not. But I maintain it's better than death.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Counseling depends on the individual clinic and the state laws. IN Alabama counseling is mandatory, and an ultrasound must be performed if the patient requests one. They must be at least shown pictures of the fetal development stages.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Not that I would want anyone I know going anywhere near the doctor being interviewed in this case. Then again, I suspect he was chosen specifically for anti-sympathy points.
The reason Planned Parenthood chose those doctors was because they wanted to illustrate that the other procedure that was not outlawed (dilation & evacuation) could be potentially more harmful than the procedure that was outlawed (dilation & extraction). In dilation & evacuation, as the witnesses said, the fetus is pulled out with forceps. In dilation & extraction (called "partial-birth abortion"), the fetus is pulled out of the woman's body except for the head and then suction is applied to remove the brain. The fetus is then pulled the rest of the way out.
I really don't think the law should have been passed. It doesn't make any sense to outlaw one method of abortion and leave one that could potentially be more harmful. If they want to outlaw all late term abortions, then try to pass a law that says that and see if it's constitutional. Don't arbitrarily choose one procedure and leave a more harmful one.
And in third-trimester abortions (which are only done if the woman's health is in grave danger or something is horribly wrong with the fetus), the only other option other than dilation & extraction is a hysterotomy (basically a Cesarean section, I think). And that is obviously a lot worse for the mother.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Women who discover that they are carrying a 100% inviable fetus (we're talking stuff like missing a brain) should be allowed to terminate that pregnancy. I'd like to think we can all at least agree on that.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Counseling depends on the individual clinic and the state laws. IN Alabama counseling is mandatory, and an ultrasound must be performed if the patient requests one. They must be at least shown pictures of the fetal development stages.
And even this was opposed by abortion advocates. (See Casey).
posted
Absolutely, Ronnie. Cracking down on certain ugly-sounding procedures may score political points, but makes little sense.
I don't see how someone can reconcile the right of a mother/doctor to kill a child partially inside (whether d & evac or d & extr) with the very widely-held notion that a different mother giving premature birth to the same baby would confer full citizenship upon moving a few more inches. Put another way, a person's right to exercise control over their own body ends at their own body. Duh? Remove the "parasite" if you like, but controlling the life (neonatal ICU) or death (scissors to the head or walking slowly, same difference) is another right entirely that I doubt 99% of Americans would grant. Modern medicine is only going to push this barrier back, so ethicists might as well get used to it.
Back on the right-to-life side of the argument, what do you suggest as the point where a fetus/infant becomes suitably humanlike in behavior, capability, reason, or criteria of choice? The point at which brain cells begin to divide independently seems a bit early; the point when a child learns to do long division seems a bit late.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a way to point out a time when they pass the cognitive abilities of a cow? Since we're allowed to kill cows...
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly, Suneun (edit: to the "100%" post).
Then again, we have to define "viable" very carefully. A healthy newborn is not viable without very specific and timely care. Some babies will never be independently viable, and/or never reach useful degrees of maturity.
(edit) Pigs are very intelligent. My meager knowledge of child psychology is enough to put the date significantly past the terminus of in-womb gestation.
[ April 17, 2004, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: Richard Berg ]
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
By all means suggest an alternative. Ontological potential? Utilitarian (societal or personal)?
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unsurprisingly, "viability" will change with the technologies of the time. But in one paper, they evaluated fetal anomalies like this: "The severity of anomalies was graded by using an ordinal scale, in which 0 was no anomalies, 1 was no impact on quality of life, 2 was little impact but possibly requiring medical therapy, 3 was serious impact on quality of life even with optimal medical therapy, and 4 was incompatible with life."
I'd like to only comment about #4, "incompatible with life." Not Down's syndrome, or Turner's syndrome, or some such like that. But very-very-bad-stuff.
#4 is where it should be clear that a woman should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy. If anyone actually doubts such anomalies exist, I could point you to some horribly graphic images of such.
Re: cognitive abilities. That's definitely a subjective choice of criteria. It just happens to be my criteria. And I don't think it's an absurd concept. Many peoples' personal morals are bound by the appearance of cognition in other living things. Killing a dolphin is More Wrong than killing a frog for many people.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But an adult dolphin has greater cognitive abilities than a newborn. Which means you have some criteria you are considering other than cognition.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Fair enough -- there's little objective ground here. I assume you mean conception, since that's when the being becomes identifiably, biologically human? If not, denoting "humanity" becomes quite intractable unless you can prove otherwise; if so, I think you'll run against common sense and societal mores in many ways. (Unfortunate ways, because it would be nice to have it so simple.)
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
(I'm sorry but) I don't buy into the "humans are inherently worth more than any other living creature" just as I don't buy into the "American humans are inherently worth more than any other human." I understand the moral dilemma faced by vegetarians (even though I poke fun at them occasionally), I just don't think they take it far enough for me.
I currently base morality on cognitive abilities. If I denied that, and said that all living beings had inherent right to life, then plants deserve an equal right to life. Which would be an impractical way to live (not harming flora or fauna).
In the current discussion on partial birth abortions, the only statements I have are: 1) Terminations at that late stage should not be denied to women carrying absolutely incompatible with life fetuses. 2) Anything else is up to argument. 3) One method to arrange a cut-off is to look at cognitive abilities, since I base my current eating and killing habits on such.
Note: I say "base" not "define." Obviously I don't have a sheet of standards I refer to. You're going to have to allow me some flexibility with that baseline.
quote:One of the most successful paradigms used to explore newborn memory and perceptual abilities has been that of habituation. Habituation can be defined as the decrement in response to stimuli following repeated presentation of the same stimulus... The earliest habituation response has been demonstrated at 22-23 weeks of gestational age and seems to occur earlier in females than in males (27). Interestingly, the onset of auditory habituation corresponds to the onset of fetal auditory abilities (28). It may be that habituation is present earlier than this however as the fetus is unable to respond to auditory stimuli before this time, habituation to auditory stimuli is unable to be evidenced earlier than 22 weeks gestation. Stimulation using other sensory modalities, e.g. olfaction/taste, whih are functional at earlier gestational ages (16,21), may reveal habituation at even earlier gestational ages.
from here while looking for fetal memories.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suneun, I am among those who view human life as sacred above animal, but that has to do with my faith. I have often wondered at people who are upset with killing animals since animals kill other animals much more viciously than we do, but removing the aspect of my particular faith, I can see why abortion and killing animals could be a moral dilemma.
Porter tells a joke: If God didn't intend for us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them out of meat!
Me: But God made us out of meat too. What does that say about God's intentions?
posted
Bev: Mmm, meat. Or I could be a level six Vegan, "nothing that casts a shadow." ---- I have no problem linking the legality of killing a fetus with the current medical technology. Something along the lines of:
1) If a fetus can be removed safely from the mother and live through medical intervention, it may not be terminated. Instead, it may be removed and put under governmental "ownership." "Removed safely" and "live" would be based on some sort of statistics I guess. 2) If a fetus could not live if removed successfully under medical intervention (99% of the time or somesuch), then the fetus may be electively terminated by the mother.
Currently, afaik one of the biggest stumbling blocks to very-early preterm viability is hyaline membrane disease (premature lung).
Note: Sorry about the excessive posts. I just kept thinking and having different comments. Going to sleep now, and will be gone all day tomorrow. So I won't be purposely ignoring responses, just unavailable.
posted
Now I'm interested, Sunuen. Since you've volunteered in an abortion clinic, do you have an idea of the top reasons given for getting an abortion? Could you rank them from 1 to 5?
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
From my personal experience? These were 1st, 2nd trimester abortions, the vast majority between 6 weeks and 14 weeks or so.
Guess at a ranking: 1) Failed birth control method (I was told in lecture today that in 50% of unintended pregnancies the couple was using birth control)* 2) No birth control method: Felt they were too young (16-18 yo), had 'other plans,' etc 3) No birth control method: Older, didn't expect to get pregnant 4) Rape
* Please don't read this as "birth control methods don't work." Read this as twofold: 1) Out of the VERY large number of people who use birth control, some fail. 2) Many people don't use birth control properly. So you could split #1 into:
a) Did not use birth control properly: Improper condom usage, missed pills, used "calendar method." b) Used birth control properly, still got pregnant.
Edit: Revised: The ranking with the split of #1 should be (in my observation, but you could prob find the numbers) 1) Young, no BC 2) Incorrect birth control usage 3) Old, no BC 4) Correct BC usage 5) Rape
posted
Suneun, your suggestions would certainly be better than the current situation. The only pro-choice people who really make me angry are those who fight against any and all regulation of abortion just because of the slippery slope that if we allow some regulation, it's going to completely take away current choice. They blind themselves to the current realities of the situation for political points.
Of course that could be said of a lot of people about many different issues, but I'm not gonna go into that.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow--that actually surprises me. I would have figured the "extreme" cases to be less extreme and closer to the top of the ranking. A non-viable fetus didn't even make your top four. Most abortions take place, in other words, because the baby is not wanted for one reason or the other.
What bothers me, I guess, is that the extreme cases are so often cited in defense of abortion, but I have seen so little justification of the decision to abort the pregnancy simply because it is not wanted. The discussion gets mired in arguments about whether the fetus is a human being, and what a woman's right to choose is all about. These two arguments have always seemed to me to be rationalizations used to convince oneself that abortion is a reasonable measure. Actual justification is always deflected. There are a deluge of statistics about non-viable fetuses, and the justification is clearer there. But the justification for what seems to be the primary reason for abortion still eludes me.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Nonviable fetus is the primary reason of abortion in the late side of things (the 20-24 week abortion types) AFAIK. This is because you won't know whether or not the fetus is nonviable until pretty late (amniocentesis and other tests). If the pregnancy is particularly poor, then the woman might miscarriage early on (and may not even know about it). This is where you see the statistic that about 60% of pregnancies end up in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). In lecture today, we were told that this stat comes from a study in which they checked a sampling pool prospectively testing hormone levels regularly, so many of the participants would never have known they had a miscarriage otherwise. For people who know they're pregnant (missed period, get a pregnancy test), about 20% of those result in miscarriage. Still quite high. I think many of those are particularly nonviable fetuses.
But besides chromosomal or genetic causes of nonviable fetus, there are many deformations that occur in the placenta due to environmental factors/sheer bad luck. For example, teratogens affect the fetus the most between the 3rd and 8th weeks of pregnancy, but may not be noticable until much later. Some fetal anomalies can result in a reasonably healthy baby. Some can't.
I had to be vague here and there in the above, because it comes from memory. If you'd like, I can look up numbers or cite studies, as could other folks.
posted
I think I'm going to be sick. I admit it, I couldn't read the whole transcript. And then I read most (or at least skimmed) of these replies.
Did you actually READ what that said!?
At least 80% of those "fetuses" given Digitalis had beating hearts at the time when thier bodies were delivered, at which time the doctor used a knife and/or sissors to remove the head (which is still inside the mother's vagina or uterus). It's only THEN that the skull is crushed to facillitate removal.
I couldn't read any further... it just made me sick.
IP: Logged |
posted
For what it's worth, I don't personally believe that abortion is a valid option in any situation.
I read it, Boon. I think some others did too. Some people are now coming to grips with the fact that the child is experiencing his death, pain and all.
It really ticks me off that they don't use the term "baby" ONCE in the entire thing. (If they did, I missed it.) Not because it isn't a baby, but because the word "baby" makes people feel guilty. It lets people realize what's really occuring.
quote: Fair enough -- there's little objective ground here. I assume you mean conception, since that's when the being becomes identifiably, biologically human? If not, denoting "humanity" becomes quite intractable unless you can prove otherwise; if so, I think you'll run against common sense and societal mores in many ways.
What the.......
My goodness. The fetus has human tissue and human blood. Human eyes, human ears, and human bone. Human brain activity and human DNA. Human action, and human emotion. What else does it need to be considered human? To have its head on the other side of a uterus? Is that the defining point?
---
Bit o' rant:
I was in third grade when I was taught the six signs of life.
A. Organization B. Growth and Development C. Reproduction D. Responses to Stimulus E. Metabolism F. Information System (DNA)
Now, babies don't have sex. And before a certain point, they don't have sexual organs. But they are still sexual creatures who have the developing ability to reproduce.
You can't use that to decide life or "not-life" because there are a lot of people out there who aren't reproducing. I think it's obvious that reproduction in this instance means the ability to create more of their own kind, which most fetuses have just as much as your average four-year-old.
I have yet to determine how a fetus of any creature is less alive than its counterpart on the other side of the uterus. Notice that "growth and development" does not have a disclaimer saying that it has to occur without the aid of the "life support" of it's mother's placenta.
quote:The fetus has human tissue and human blood. Human eyes, human ears, and human bone.
At what point does human tissue become distinguishable from generalized primate tissue? When it consists of human DNA? That's conception. When it forms uniquely human structures? That's too debateable (subjectively comparing x-rays...) to be a tractable solution, it seems to me. When it forms the capacity for uniquely human behavior? That's well past 9 months of gestation.
quote:I have yet to determine how a fetus of any creature is less alive than its counterpart on the other side of the uterus.
Absolutely, this has been my point. Which is why we need to come up with a developmentally-grounded definition of human, if we want to avoid condoning postpartum abortion that is.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In that case, Richard, the only way to completely avoid ever condoning postpartum abortion is to stop all abortion. I truly believe this, and not just because I'm Pro-Life. Even if you could say that taking a breath of air is what constitutes humanity (no way), can you really see the person performing the abortion STOPPING because the fetus turned it's head and managed to get a sip of air? I highly doubt it.
Think about it. This woman has decided she doesn't want the child, for whatever reason. That's a difficult enough choice as it is. What happens if the child is born alive? What happens to the abortionist's career? Wouldn't it be much simpler to just kill the child anyway, rather than get into that whole dilemma?
See, I can't imagine that the person standing there, holding the baby's head in the uterus is really that concerned about the difference between inside the uterus and out. They have a job to do, and that job is to make sure that child isn't born alive. Barring that, the next best choice is to make sure the family never knows the child took a breath. Do you think that, if the child manages to slip out just enough to get a breath, that the abortionist says, "Stop everything! This child has breathed! It's alive! Sorry ma'am, you have to take home a live child." It may happen sometimes, but I'm willing to bet it's a lot less common than you think.
Even if it rarely happens, let's say once in a million, you have still killed a child. You can't control it to the point that no child will ever be harmed. And how long before you see people using the "technical definition" of abortion to condone killing a child that was already born? Maybe the AMA can go in and change the definition of "born" to make them happy.
I can see some people arguing that no matter what you do, you can never keep all children from getting harmed. But I have always been concerned that allowing abortion will one day lead to allowing the murder of born children. The only way to prevent that to is to stop all abortion. Make it CLEAR to Americans that we regard life so highly that we will do everything we can to prevent even ONE death.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
((((appluads PSI))))) Re: 3rd trimester non-viable fetuses... If the child is truly non viable, then why not just do a pit drip and not perfom any lifesaving procedures? Is that not much gentler than partial birth abortion, Digitalis, etc? Assumimg the woman actually wanted this child before she learned of the devestaing defect, she would then have the opportunity to say good-bye.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm confused. In partial-birth abortions, the woman's body has to open up some to get the child out. As Romanylass said, if the child is going to die on its own, why not let it be born alive? Because it would be too painful for people to realize this is a life? Because then we would be morally obligated to use all our medical skills to save it? Because the woman might feel something for the child? What are the reasons behind making sure it comes out dead? Is it so much worse or more painful to adopt out a child than to kill it? Especially in the case of partial-birth abortions. But in all cases of abortion, the woman is already pregnant. She is undergoing a risky medical proceedure. How much of a sacrifice is it to continue through with it and have the baby and then give it to someone who wants it? The fact that this is viewed as such a heavy burden in our society says to me that something in our society is very, very sick. On the part of the women and those who she fears she will be ostracized by.
quote: It really ticks me off that they don't use the term "baby" ONCE in the entire thing. (If they did, I missed it.) Not because it isn't a baby, but because the word "baby" makes people feel guilty. It lets people realize what's really occuring.
Yeah, I guess the word "baby" is only appropriate if it is wanted. I must claim ignorance, though, on specific instances and reasons for women choosing partial-birth abortions in particular. I certainly can't think of a reason I would.
posted
I have been doing some more reading. Not because I wanted to, but because I felt that I needed to face these things, because if I'm going to fight against it, I need to know exactly what I'm fighting against.
I think we all agree that partial birth abortion is a horrific thing. I don't think many hatrackers support this procedure.
However, a large number of abortions are in fact 2nd trimester - between 12 and 23 weeks. Here is a description of 2nd trimester abortion procedures.
quote:The D&E (dilation and extraction) is the most common type of second trimester abortion. During this procedure, the mother's cervix must be dilated much more than in a first trimester abortion simply because her baby is now too large to pull it from the uterus solely by using the suction machine.
After sufficient dilation is accomplished, the abortionist begins the D&E procedure by rupturing the amniotic sac which contains the unborn child. He then begins the process of dismembering the baby and pulling it out of the uterus in pieces. To do this, the abortionist uses suction as well as surgical forceps which basically act like a pair of pliers. He inserts this instrument into the uterus and starts to open and close it until a part of the baby or placenta is grasped. That piece is torn off and is pulled out. This process is repeated until the abortionist feels that the procedure has been completed.
Sometimes, the baby's skull is too large to pull out of the uterus, so the abortionist must first crush it with the forceps. The abortionist will know that the child's skull has been sufficiently collapsed when the baby's brains flow out of the uterus. Among abortionists this is called the "calvaria sign" and it signals that the skull will then be much easier to remove.
Once the abortionist has pulled out everything he can feel with the forceps, he will use a curette to scrape any remaining parts off the sides of the uterus. After that, the suction machine can be used again to vacuum up whatever debris is still in the uterus.
Throughout a D&E procedure, all of the extracted baby parts are placed on a tray where they are then reassembled. This is done to make certain that the entire baby is accounted for and that no parts are left behind.
One way that the D&E procedure is often made easier is by killing the baby a day or so before the procedure is scheduled. This extra step is generally referred to as a "ditch" and is accomplished by inserting a long needle through the mother's abdomen and into the heart of her baby. Then, a chemical agent - usually digoxin - is injected through the needle causing the child's death. The advantage of doing this is that the feticidal agent (digoxin) causes the child's body to soften, making the dismemberment and removal process much easier. Despite that advantage, however, ditching does have one potential downside. Because the chemical used to kill the baby is toxic, it is crucial for the abortionist to know that he has inserted the needle into the baby and not the mother. To verify that, the abortionist will sometimes let go of the needle before injecting the drug and see if it jumps around independent of the mom's movements. If so, he knows that he has hit the baby and can proceed. (This part of the ditching process is sometimes referred to as "harpooning the whale").
A variation of the D&E is called intact D&E. In this procedure, the baby is not pulled out in pieces but removed whole. Normally, the abortionist will use a feticidal chemical to kill the baby first or he will position the baby so that he can crush its skull. However, in some cases the baby will actually survive the procedure and emerge alive. In the abortion industry, live births are referred to as "The Dreaded Complication."
Since most Intact D&E abortions are performed on babies who are too young to survive once separated from the mother, the usual response to a live birth is to simply set the child aside and allow it to die on its own. The abortion industry calls this practice "comfort care." In some cases, abortionists have been observed actively killing the child by drowning it, crushing its tracheal tube, or snapping its neck.
Another type of second trimester procedure is known as instillation. This procedure begins with the abortionist sticking a long needle through the mother's abdomen and into the baby's amniotic fluid sac. A substantial amount of amniotic fluid is then drained from the sac and replaced with either a saline or urea solution. This usually kills the child, but it may take hours during which some women report feeling their baby violently thrashing around. Photos of children killed by instillation procedures generally show massive chemical burns covering the child's entire body.
Once the process of killing the baby has been initiated, the mother is given drugs to induce labor so she will eventually deliver the dead child. Because there have been cases where babies have survived this process, some abortionists inject a drug into the baby's heart prior to delivery to make sure it is dead. (Urea has also been used as a prepping agent for D&E abortions. The urea is inserted into the amniotic sac but instead of inducing labor, a D&E is performed. The advantage of this is that the urea solution helps soften up the baby and makes it easier to dismember and remove.)
Another type of second trimester procedure is called induction. The mother is given a drug - usually prostaglandin or oxytocin - that causes her to go into labor. Often the abortionist will kill the baby at the same time in order to avoid the possibility that the mom will deliver a live baby. In other instances, the labor-inducing drug which was given to the mother will kill her baby. However, it is well established that live births are a real possibility with induction procedures. As in the case of Intact D&E abortions, these procedures are usually performed on babies who are too young to survive outside the womb. Again, if the baby emerges alive, the usual response is to set the child aside and allow it to die on its own, or for the abortionist to kill it once it's delivered.
The final methods of second trimester abortion are hysterectomy and hysterotomy. Of the more than one million American babies killed by abortion every year, approximately 5000 are destroyed in this manner. The relative rarity of these procedures is driven by the fact that they have a higher incidence of maternal complications and death than other second trimester abortion methods. During a hysterectomy abortion, the mother's entire uterus (including the baby) is removed and the baby usually dies during the procedure. The hysterotomy abortion is similar to a cesarean section. The abortionist does not remove the uterus, but cuts it open and removes the baby. If the child was not killed prior to removal, it is set aside to die.
posted
To make certain all the bases are covered, let's give the description of first trimester abortion procedures:
quote:The most common first trimester abortions are vacuum aspiration and suction curettage. Vacuum aspiration is performed with a machine that uses a vacuum to suck the baby out of the uterus. The vacuum is created by a hand held pump (manual vacuum aspiration) or by electricity (electric vacuum aspiration). The electric machine is far more common in the US. Generally, the manual pump is only used to kill children who are less than 6 weeks old. Except in the very earliest abortions, the mom's cervix will be dilated large enough to allow a cannula to be inserted into her uterus. The cannula is a hollow plastic tube that is connected to either the hand or electric pump by a flexible hose. As a vacuum is created, the abortionist runs the tip of the cannula along the surface of the uterus causing the baby to be dislodged and sucked into the tube - either whole or in pieces. Suction curettage is a variation of vacuum aspiration in which the suction machine is used to get the baby out, with any remaining parts being scraped out of the uterus with a surgical instrument called a curette. Following that, another pass is made through the mom's uterus with the suction machine to help insure that none of the baby's body parts have been left behind.
Another form of first trimester abortion is the D&C (dilation and curettage). During this procedure, the mother's cervix is dilated and a curette is scraped along the sides of the uterus to dislodge the baby. Suction is not used for this type of abortion, but since the mother is usually asleep the abortionist can dilate the cervix large enough that many passes with the curette are possible.
Some first trimester abortions are not accomplished using surgery, but chemicals. This procedure begins when the mom is given either mifepristone (Mifeprex; RU486) or methotrexate. Mifepristone causes the baby to become detached from its mother's uterus while methotrexate is actually toxic to the baby and, therefore, kills it directly. Once the child is either detached or dead, the mom is given a labor-inducing drug which causes the uterus to cramp and expel her dead baby. This type of abortion only works up to about the 9th week of pregnancy.
posted
And since millions of abortions are performed, even with only 10% of them being in 2nd and 3rd trimester - my statement of large number still applies, RRR.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Show me an unbiased source. I have gone to the CDC and pulled stats before, but these were quicker and easier to get to.
We're talking about numbers here, and descriptions of the procedures. Do you deny that these descriptions are accurate?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way you said "However a large number of abortions are in fact 2nd trimester..." I assumed you were talking about in relation to abortions as a whole. As in, "A large number of the abortions performed are in the 2nd trimester." If that's not what you meant, then I'm sorry I misunderstood.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many people on this thread have expressed outrage at the procedures of 3rd trimester abortions. I wanted people to understand what is involved in 2nd trimester abortions too. Compared to 3rd trimester, 2nd trimester are much more common.
Compared to 2nd trimester, 1st trimester are much more common. I was not trying to argue that fact. When I said "large numbers" I was thinking of the ratio of 2nd trimester procedures to 3rd.
I thought it might be helpful for people to see what is involved in all stages. Yes, 3rd trimester abortions that involve the puncturing of a baby's head and sucking out its brains is horrific. But in 2nd trimester, and 1st for that matter, the babies are dismembered and removed in pieces.
Which one is worse? Is that the kind of question we even need to ask?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
