quote:I am all for this. Especially since I like to be realistic. Since I don't see abortion ever becoming illegal again in this country, I would like to see the underlying "disease" treated. That is a better solution anyway, if it can be done.
quote:What do you think? If you're against abortion, would you make exceptions for (admittedly rare) cases of pregnancy from rape or incest? If so, why?
quote:It seems to me that the idea that there should be exceptions for rape and incest sometimes stems from a mentality that promiscuous women deserve the "punishment" of the pregnancy. In the case of rape and incest, it's not the girl's fault, so why "punish" her.
I do support exceptions in cases of rape and incest. Most stridently in cases of rape, a bit on the fence in cases of incest, and my reasoning has nothing to do with punishment or promiscuity.
I've talked about it before on our last big abortion thread. If you'd like me to go into it again I will, but it probably won't be until tomorrow.
------
As for 'damn you' and 'go to hell' not meaning much coming from an atheist...that's just nonsense. Of course it still means something coming from an atheist. It still means some variation of "I hate you" or "you really suck" or "you're such a bad person, awful things deserve to happen to you" or an expression of contempt or superiority.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: As for 'damn you' and 'go to hell' not meaning much coming from an atheist...that's just nonsense. Of course it still means something coming from an atheist. It still means some variation of "I hate you" or "you really suck" or "you're such a bad person, awful things deserve to happen to you" or an expression of contempt or superiority.
Of course it means something. But as my son pointed out, "Damn" is the original "curse word." It has a specific meaning that implies an unfathomable hatred. I'd always thought of it as pretty much a throwaway insult, so it really shocked me to realize that although I'd known what the word meant, I never thought of how intense it is, from a religious perspective.
In retrospect it occurred to me how many religious people will say something like "Gosh Darn you!" I had always thought it was kind of ridiculous to come up with a euphemism for an insult that is already pretty meaningless. Once it had been pointed out to me, it made a lot more sense.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: ...how in the world does an abortion in the 3rd trimester EVER going to SAVE a woman's life?
When the mother is diagnosed with any life-threatening ailment or disease with treatment that would be impossible for a pregnant woman, such as chemo.
The point is not to offer an out for women looking for late-term abortions of convenience, but to avoid tying the hands of doctors presented with such problems, especially when an outright ban on late term abortions could result in the deaths of both the mother and child.
At that point, say she needed chemo, giving birth and aborting takes the same out of her. You can just as easily give birth at 32 weeks as you can push the head out, have the brain suctioned out and then have the body follow. The logic here is failing.
There is such a thing as giving birth EARLY. Like with toxemia. You don't see a rush to kill the child when a mom wants it. Instead, they give a shot to mature the lungs, put the mom on bed rest and induce when they need to. Duh.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Went and checked with Teres for details before I posted it; her mom had a late-term abortion. She started hemorraging and the doctors couldn't stop it, they had to abort the pregnancy to get to the problem. It wasn't an easy decision but the alternative was to lose the baby anyway or to lose both of them. I'm glad they made the choice they did; Teres was born after this happened.
However, this was also 40 years ago, and medical science faced with the same problem today may very well be capable of either helping her or successfully taking the baby.
I'm just wary of non-medical people saying there's no reason for late-term abortions. What do doctors say?
(Note: I don't advocate them, either. I was born at 7 months because of complications, I get a bit tetchy when people talk about late-term abortions of convenience)
I understand that when you are trying to get the baby out and help the mom, sometimes the baby will die. That is regretable. But babies now can survive even earlier than ever. And unless I am wrong about the procedure that is followed for a late term abortion, the only thing different about an abortion at this stage versus birth, is that they suction the brain out when the head has cleared but before the body follows. Where is the medical necessity for that???
As for not trusting a non medical person, fine. But I have had 6 children. I am VERY knowledgable on the ins and outs of giving birth. It is tramatic. If a mom is early in the pregnancy and they find that giving birth would endanger her health, than I see no reason to force her to carry the baby and then die giving birth. But if you find at 32 weeks that you have cancer and you need treatment, there is no reason that you can't deliver ASAP and then receive treatment.
And I for one never said that they were done out of "convenience." I just get sick of that phrase "exemption for the mother's health" for this procedure when I have a hard time ever seeing that impacting it. If there is a OB out there, and I am wrong, please correct me!
Posts: 24 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to derail this thread off its intended topic, but did anyone else but me think that there was going to be an abortion musical because of the thread title?
Just a little humor in an intensely serious thread.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There ARE cases though where it can impact the life of the mother. My cousin can't have anymore children, her doctor told her that if she did she would probably die from the process, and that the baby might not survive it either. Now, I don't know what measures are being taken by my cousin to stop pregnancies, they are very religious and I KNOW their views on abortion, they believe it's tantamount to murder, which is drilled into my head every Thanksgiving and Christmas despite the fact that I usually agree with them on the subject.
Anyway, what if, god forbid, she were raped, or accidentally got pregnant, or something happened. Actually that's a messed up scenario on many fronts, because she'd never be able to opt for an abortion because of her and my family's personal beliefs, but were she to have the baby she would most likely die. Given the fact that the baby would probably die too, I can't imagine they would take the risk, but they wouldn't have much of a choice if it were illgal.
Regardless, my point is that there are situations where abortion can save the life of the mother, and where a pregnancy, any at all, regardless of modern science, can be a danger to the life of the mother.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sydneybristow: At that point, say she needed chemo, giving birth and aborting takes the same out of her. You can just as easily give birth at 32 weeks as you can push the head out, have the brain suctioned out and then have the body follow. The logic here is failing.
You have it backwards. In an abortion using intact dilation and extraction (sometimes called "partial-birth abortion") the fetus is pulled out of the uterus feet first. The head remains inside the birth canal.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: There ARE cases though where it can impact the life of the mother. My cousin can't have anymore children, her doctor told her that if she did she would probably die from the process, and that the baby might not survive it either. Now, I don't know what measures are being taken by my cousin to stop pregnancies, they are very religious and I KNOW their views on abortion, they believe it's tantamount to murder, which is drilled into my head every Thanksgiving and Christmas despite the fact that I usually agree with them on the subject.
Anyway, what if, god forbid, she were raped, or accidentally got pregnant, or something happened. Actually that's a messed up scenario on many fronts, because she'd never be able to opt for an abortion because of her and my family's personal beliefs, but were she to have the baby she would most likely die. Given the fact that the baby would probably die too, I can't imagine they would take the risk, but they wouldn't have much of a choice if it were illgal.
Regardless, my point is that there are situations where abortion can save the life of the mother, and where a pregnancy, any at all, regardless of modern science, can be a danger to the life of the mother.
Did you read my posts fully?
Cause I never said that abortion could never save the life of a mother. Re read please.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sydneybristow: At that point, say she needed chemo, giving birth and aborting takes the same out of her. You can just as easily give birth at 32 weeks as you can push the head out, have the brain suctioned out and then have the body follow. The logic here is failing.
You have it backwards. In an abortion using intact dilation and extraction (sometimes called "partial-birth abortion") the fetus is pulled out of the uterus feet first. The head remains inside the birth canal.
Ahh, thanks for the correction.
I don't think it changes the premise though, unless getting the brain out helps the head squeeze- and usually with a complete breech, the shoulders are the difficult part.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if the mother's life is at stake and she cant deliver vaginally, then a c-section in the third trimester is also a viable option.
Third trimester begins at 28 weeks, if I'm not mistaken. I think the earliest fetus to survive was around 20 weeks. I could be wrong on that point. I do know that at the hospital where I gave birth, they sent home a 22 week preemie that weighed 14 ounces when born and was discharged from the hospital a week before her original due date. They used to think there was a threshold at one pound - any baby weighing less than a pound couldn't survive. Not so anymore.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said, Teres' mom's example was 4 decades ago, I'd be very surprised if the same case couldn't be handled successfully today. And, as I said, I was born at 7 months, so even then early births were survivable.
But my point is that there can be cases when a doctor must make that call, and any law that removes that option is a law I will fight against. Make it as tough as you want, but leave the option for abortions in the case of emergencies. If it's as rare as pro-life advocates argue, it shouldn't be a big deal yet it always seems to be a sticking point.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But such a call from the doctor is easily verified. There would be diagnoses, charts, tests, and other evidence to back up the doctor's call.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Along the same lines as SouthDakota legislators, Governor JebBush broke grounds for an all "RomanCatholic"city in Florida and the minister of minority welfare of the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh has bumped up the reward for murdering a cartoonist to $7million.
posted
Is there any reason to "respect" all human life other than "slippery slope" reasons? I mean, if we knew that keeping abortion legal throughout pregnancy would have no efect at all on people's willingness to kill other people, would abortion still be bad? (Of course, slippery slope reasons are fine, though not always convincing, in real life since we never know anything for certain.)
I'd be perfectly fine with all abortions being banned. But in the spirit of compromise, I'm willing to allow abortions until the baby starts to look like a baby (size being irrelevant). I don't have any hard data for this, but I think that we're biologically set up to feel sympathy for creatures that look like us but not so much for creatures that don't look like us, and that if you lose that sympathy toward one type of creature that looks like us you make it much more likely that you'll lose sympathy toward all other such creatures. It seems that extending our sympathy to everything that will someday look like us is something our instincts never evolved to do.
Also, allowing abortion until the baby looks like a baby would allow for stem cell research and any form of birth control, and it would keep people from having any worries about saving all the babies that are spontaneously aborted before the mother ever even knows she's pregnant.
(Also, it seems likely that an injunction will get put on the South Dakota law almost immediately after it's passed.)
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But such a call from the doctor is easily verified. There would be diagnoses, charts, tests, and other evidence to back up the doctor's call.
I would hope that there would be serious penalties for a doctor though that performed a late term abortion that didn't meet the criteria, and that a review board looked over every case to ensure it fit the criteria.
Like mph said, those of whose who are hesitant about medical exceptions believe that it could wind up not reducing the amount of abortions significantly if "medical need" were so loosely defined that doctors could essentially make up reasons and/or there were no follow up procedures that reviewed the cases.
That is not to say that I ever think a woman should have to carry a baby to term if it would kill her. I just want to be darn sure that if we're going to take the life of an unborn child, it really is a life and death decision for the mother. And I would be hard pressed to come up with a scenario that required a partial birth abortion - I can't see how anything that jeopardizes the mother's life couldn't be fixed just as well by delivering the baby alive instead.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But such a call from the doctor is easily verified. There would be diagnoses, charts, tests, and other evidence to back up the doctor's call.
I would hope that there would be serious penalties for a doctor though that performed a late term abortion that didn't meet the criteria, and that a review board looked over every case to ensure it fit the criteria.
Like mph said, those of whose who are hesitant about medical exceptions believe that it could wind up not reducing the amount of abortions significantly if "medical need" were so loosely defined that doctors could essentially make up reasons and/or there were no follow up procedures that reviewed the cases.
That is not to say that I ever think a woman should have to carry a baby to term if it would kill her. I just want to be darn sure that if we're going to take the life of an unborn child, it really is a life and death decision for the mother. And I would be hard pressed to come up with a scenario that required a partial birth abortion - I can't see how anything that jeopardizes the mother's life couldn't be fixed just as well by delivering the baby alive instead.
Thank you- just what I have been saying. And I have yet to see anyone give a senario which would require the child to be killed instead of just giving birth. (during the last trimester)
Posts: 24 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
And you know this because your field is obstetrics?
As (I think) you well know, kq meant that the mother cannot deliver either vaginally or by c-section without undue risk to her.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When an abortion is done, the baby can be removed, if necessary, not intact. (I'll be more graphic if you feel the need.) Thus sparing the woman the (physical) stress of labor. While I do not believe this is commonly necessary for her health, my understanding from doctors whose field this actually is, is that it is sometimes necessary.
Which I'll take over your suppositions any day.
And, not that it matters, but I have three children, one of whom may be older than you. At least she acts older. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No need to get graphic. I can picture it for myself. I had thought of that but you know (having children) that no matter how you do it, it IS tramatic.
And the question raised was "What if she can't deliver vaginally and can't undergo a c-section?"
Which would mean that there would be no way for the baby to get out, intact or otherwise.
"At least she acts older."
Sweet of you. I didn't realize I was acting immature. I guess I figured reasoned arguments meant something here. Smiley or no, THAT was rude.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the question raised was "What if she can't deliver vaginally and can't undergo a c-section?"
Which would mean that there would be no way for the baby to get out, intact or otherwise.
No it wouldn't. They can take a dead baby out in little tiny pieces while they have to take a live baby out in one piece.
One piece means bigger hole means more trauma.
Little pieces mean smaller hole means less trauma.
Ok, LESS, but you would still need to dialate, use loads of pain meds, and get in there with a sharp object (which is VERY dangerous) and then attempt to extract those tiny peices, leaving none behind or you would have problems.
All of which would be just as dangerous as doing a c-section. Are you all so eager to kill a baby???
"The smiley I used was not in any way meant to detract from my rudeness.
Was yours?"
Now I am rude- I thought I was childish. Which is it?
For the record, I was being silly. Not rude. If it was taken as such then I apologize. As for "dishing it", I didn't realize I had. And I didn't feel I was acting childish in any way.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:All of which would be just as dangerous as doing a c-section.
Not necessarily. Are you an OB/GYN? If you are, I'll take your word for it. If not, I'm not convinced.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still can't think of a case in which taking a late third trimester child out in little bitty bloody bits would be so necessary, and yet so much safer, than taking it out by Csection. Marginally safer, maybe I could buy, IF you can give me some examples. If nobody can give me any examples then I don't see that you know any more than I do.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:One piece means bigger hole means more trauma.
Little pieces mean smaller hole means less trauma.
For one thing, I'm not convinced this is true. If the emergent reason for taking the baby out is bleeding, then most likely going in there and clamping the bleeding is going to be much more effective than creating more bleeding and more confusion during the abortion. If the person has ecclampsia, getting all the products of conception out NOW instead of slowly in little pieces seems far safer to me. So I'm really having trouble figuring out scenarios in which this can be considered safer.
posted
I just think that it should be an option for the doctor, to use their best judgement. I believe that most doctors want to follow the law and preserve life whenever possible, so shouldn't we just grant the exception in the law and let them decide? I mean, most states have laws right now in place banning abortions past a certain point, except for those exceptions. How many third-trimester abortions actually happen? Does anyone have any numbers? I was under the impression that they're quite rare. I can concieve of scenarios when it would matter. Not to mention psycholgical reasons-- there's a story behind that one.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree there needs to be rules in place to protect doctors (and immediate family) who, in trying to save the mother, let the baby die as a consequence. Or, in trying to save the baby, let the mother die if that's the preference of the biological parents. Either way.
But intellectually I still can't imagine a late abortion procedure being necessary at such a moment. I'd love to see some examples.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ok, LESS, but you would still need to dialate, use loads of pain meds, and get in there with a sharp object (which is VERY dangerous) and then attempt to extract those tiny peices, leaving none behind or you would have problems.
All of which would be just as dangerous as doing a c-section
Like you said, there could be less trauma required for an abortion than what would be required for a vagianal or cesarian birth. While there certainly is some danger involved in such an abortion, I am not qualified to say that one is definitely as dangerous as the other. Are you qualified to make such a judgment?
Because of that, I'm not willing to rule out the idea that there could be some situation where the mother's best chance at survival would be to abort the baby.
quote:. Are you all so eager to kill a baby???
Wow. That's quite a jump to conclusions from somebody who appears to not know much about me.
I was saying nothing about what should happen, or whether such an abortion would be justified. I was disagreeing with what I percieved to be your stance -- that there can be no scenario where a third-term abortion is medically justified.
I don't know of any specific situations where it would be, but it seems reasonable to me that it could be.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: I agree there needs to be rules in place to protect doctors (and immediate family) who, in trying to save the mother, let the baby die as a consequence. Or, in trying to save the baby, let the mother die if that's the preference of the biological parents. Either way.
But intellectually I still can't imagine a late abortion procedure being necessary at such a moment. I'd love to see some examples.
The interesting thing here is that I have looked. I have looked at NARAL's website, Planned Parenthood, and have even read up on choice on Democratic underground. The only examples I found were ones related to an abnormality in the baby. Mostly they say that it is rare. I have yet to find an example that relates to the mother NEEDING to abort in the 3rd trimester to save her life.
As for being an OB, I am not. But I never said to take my word on it. I am willing to be proved wrong here. It would be hard for me to prove myself- the problem with proving a negative and all. If it happens for her health, then we should be able to point to an example. Not just the theoretical chop the baby up senario.
." Are you all so eager to kill a baby??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. That's quite a jump to conclusions from somebody who appears to not know much about me.
I was saying nothing about what should happen, or whether such an abortion would be justified. I was disagreeing with what I percieved to be your stance -- that there can be no scenario where a third-term abortion is medically justified.
I don't know of any specific situations where it would be, but it seems reasonable to me that it could be."
Sorry it was late and I got frustrated with all the hypothetical "chop the baby up" ideas. Not meant at anyone in particular.
I agree that the doc should make the decision with the mother. I CAN see occasions when in saving the mother's life, the baby dies. But in that case the intended outcome is not for the baby to die and in my mind it would not be considered abortion. I am talking about when a mother goes in to abort in the last trimester, and they have to remove the body, suck out the brain before they deliver. And my question was when that would be MEDICALLY needed to save her life.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I don't think anyone here is arguing that a late-term abortion performed because the mother has asked for it is a good thing or should be in any way protected. All we are saying is that in the incredibly rare cases where the doctor must make the call to abort the child or lose both of them, he should have that option.
It would delight me no end if this never happened. And I'm pro-choice.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:All we are saying is that in the incredibly rare cases where the doctor must make the call to abort the child or lose both of them, he should have that option.
Incredibly rare or non-existent. That still hasn't been demonstrated here.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph, no, the death of a fetus that occurs as medical intervention is saving the mothers life isn't usually called abortion. That would be a miscarriage or a stillbirth. Medically, we call miscarriages spontaneous abortions, but spontaneous abortions are not what we are discussing here. We are talking about deliberately killing the fetus in the third trimester.
And some of us are still at a loss to come up with a case in which THIS is required to save a mother's life.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's woth noting that "partial birth abortion" is not a medically defined term. Often what is meant by this is a form of dilation and curretage, which may be done relatively early or late in a pregnancy.
The pictures of the most emotional impact are likely to be of late-term D&C procedures, but that does not necessarily reflect all D&C procedures. I realize much of the discussion has been (implicitly or not) about third trimester abortions, but I think the clarification is useful to keep in mind.
Since "partial birth abortion" does not have a clearly agreed upon technical medical definition, I worry that sometimes the referents can get a little blurred. I think this concern was behind much of the criticism of bans on "partial birth abortions;" [i.e., would the ban include D&C at 8 weeks gestation? 10 weeks?]
And again, I realize that these are not necessarily the cases we are discussing, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that according to the most recent CDC report (for 2002),
quote:Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 60% were performed at [less than] 8 weeks' gestation and 88% at [less than] 13 weeks. From 1992 (when detailed data regarding early abortions were first collected) through 2002, steady increases have occurred in the percentage of abortions performed at [less than]6 weeks' gestation. A limited number of abortions was obtained at [greater than] 15 weeks' gestation, including 4.1% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at [greater than] 21 weeks.
[note: replaced symbols with text for "less than" and "greater than" because of html conflict]
Note that 88% of reported abortions were performed in the first trimester. However, also of note is that 1.4% were performed at greater than 21 weeks gestation, or during a potential period of viability.
I don't expect the numbers to sway anyone's viewpoint one way or the other. I do think they are useful touchstones for discussing what is actually going on across the country.
I personally know of no actual case reported in the literature in which a D&C performed on a woman in her third trimester was medically necessary to save the woman's life, as opposed to vaginal or C-section delivery. I can certainly think up (implausible, but possible) hypotheticals, but I'm not sure that would be useful to anyone.
I've also long held that the "right to have an abortion" (whatever that means) does not necessarily translate into "the right to the death of the embryo/fetus/infant" (whatever word one may choose to use).
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, do you have a link to where you got those numbers? Because I would like to know exactly what we're talking about - how many abortions were performed in 2002, so we can tell just how many that 1.4 percent represents and what percentage of abortions had gestational age reported. That's a key line in there: "Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported"
If only a small percentage of abortions do report the gestational age, then we may not have a significant sample size. I'm not a doctor, so I don't know how the actual reporting is done, maybe it's common to report gestational age but maybe it's only done in those states that have limitations on abortion based on gestational age.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's also worth pointing out that D&C, dilation and curettage is not a procedure limited to use in abortion cases. I've had D&C's before for excessive uterine bleeding when I was suffering with adenomyosis.
I don't think anyone is advocating the outlawing of the procdure, just the use of the procedure for the purpose of ending a pregnancy. The ban on what is known as "partial birth abortions" would most likely be based on gestational age, or have wording similar to Alabama's current law on post-viability abortion, which you can read here. It's Section 26.22.1-5
The law bans post-viability abortions and defines viability as
quote:The stage of fetal development when, in the judgment of the physician based upon the particular facts of the case before him or her and in light of the most advanced medical technology and information available to him or her, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the unborn child outside the body of his or her mother, with or without artificial support.
There is no language in the law that bans a specific type of procedure.
There is an exception for the life of the mother which depends on the doctor's judgment:
quote:(1) It shall not be a violation of subsection (a) if an abortion is performed by a physician and that physician reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent either the death of the pregnant woman or the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the woman.
There must be a concurring opinion by a separate physician who certifies in writing that after examination, he/she agrees the abortion is necessary to save the mother's life. The abortion has to be performed in a manner that gives the fetus the best opportunity for survival and a separate physican whose charge is the baby must be present at the procedure to take over the baby's care after it is delivered.
This is an example of a law on the books that makes no mention of the term "partial birth abortion" and doesn't seek to oulaw any specific procedure.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, the most useful resource I know of for national data is the CDC's yearly Abortion Surveillance reports (the latest, released in November of last year, is for analysis of data gathered in 2002).
I know the question you want is answerable, but I don't think it is clarified in the summary text. It looks like it might be able to be pieced together from the tabulated data. Alternatively, I would bet that there is an email address for answering questions about the data.
I don't mean to minimize that number, by the way. 1.4% is a surprising number to me, if correct. I would be more surprised and disturbed if you found it to be yet larger.
(I'm just careful in my own mind to keep the best information we have at the forefront, as it helps me better understand what the situation is. Doubtlessly there are abortions which are not reported to the CDC, although this might be reflective of (or de facto make them) illegal procedures. I really don't know.)
----
Edited to add: And just for clarification, I realize that there are laws restricting abortion only by gestational age and that do not use the term "partial birth abortion." (And I'm glad you gave the examples! ) I'm wanting to keep those distinctions at hand in the discussion, though, as it can get murky if we are not precise (at least, it gets murky fast for me).
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, I find it interesting that you say there is no medically defined partial birth abortion. I've read about the people that do it and and there seems to be a pretty consistent definition of it.
I looked it up just now to see what the states and laws say about partial birth abortion and just in my first searches I found a site that explains abortion laws in America. It defines partial birth abortion this way:
quote:So-called "Partial-birth" abortion is performed in the second and third trimesters and entails (1) inducing a breech delivery with forceps, (2) delivering the legs, arms and torso only, (3) puncturing the back of the skull with scissors or a trochar, (4) inserting a suction curette into the skull, (4) suctioning the contents of the skull so as to collapse it, (5) completing the delivery.
So... I guess I don't know what it takes for it to be considered a medical term. If the doctors who perform it call it that, and the laws call it that, then what more needs to be done for it to fit your definition? I know you have a lot of training in ethics, so I'm genuinely confused.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The total number of reported legal induced abortions in the US for 2002 was 1,267,415. I think (from a rough read) that 44 "states or areas of occurence" (which includes the District of Columbia and New York City -- analyzed separately to make a total of 52 areas) reported gestation adequately at time of induced abortion.
There may well be something about the 8 non-reporters that would skew the late-term number higher or lower. I do know, however, that California and NYC are reporters for this information.
The best estimate (assuming the same trends for the 8 non-reporters) would seem to be 1.4% of that total number above.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
