Fetal dismemberment abortion
Common procedure more barbaric than partial birth abortion
By Johanan Raatz
E-mail
Print- Share on Facebook
-
Seed Newsvine
- Text size:
The second type of abortion that the PBA ban might have accidentally inhibited in a few cases, the D&E, is ironically far more inhumane than the partial-birth variety.
You may have heard of a form of abortion known as “partial birth abortion” (PBA), or alternatively, a D&X abortion. It was banned by congress several years ago. The courts declared the ban unconstitutional until the Gonzalez v Carhart decision upheld the ban in 2007.
The reasons it was previously declared unconstitutional were two-fold. First, it did not have a health exception. Secondly it could be misconstrued to effectively ban another form of abortion, known as D&E, thereby causing what the judges decided was an “undue burden on the women’s right to an abortion.”
The second type of abortion that the PBA ban might have accidentally inhibited in a few cases, the D&E, is ironically far more inhumane than the partial-birth variety. In partial birth abortions, the fetal child is delivered to the point where only the head is in the birth canal. The skull is punctured and the brain is removed so as to collapse the skull and thus complete the delivery procedure more easily. Sounds fairly straightforward, so how could this possibly be confused with D&E?
PBA originated as a variant of the D&E type of abortion. When the last few steps of a conventional D&E procedure are malpracticed, the procedure comes close enough to a PBA to confuse the two. In the D&E, or fetal dismemberment abortion procedure, the fetal child’s limbs are lacerated and ripped off one by one. The pelvic region and lower torso are surgically mutilated and removed and the fetal child’s head is then crushed instead of punctured and caved in. Sometimes, when the fetal dismemberment abortion is malpracticed, several of the steps are left uncompleted or undone. What results is the live partial birth of a fetal child, thus making it a de facto PBA.
Now if you are generally opposed to the legal protection of fetal rights in a larger context, let me inform you as to the facts and figures pertaining to this type of abortion:
The fetal dismemberment abortion (D&E) is performed well into the second trimester and sometimes even into the third trimester when the fetal child is already well-developed.
While the fetal dismemberment variant of abortion accounts for only 10 percent of abortions and is not used in the first trimester, it occurs on average on a scale of over 100,000 times a year.
While empirical studies have come short of understanding exactly what pain is, causing doctors to disagree as to when a fetal child experiences pain, the thalamus, which is associated with consciousness and pain, exists by the eighth week of pregnancy. Research indicating behavioral responses to pain in the fetal child substantiates this.
For a medical diagram of the procedure go to: http://catalog.nucleusinc.com/enlargeexhibit.php?ID=9663&TC=&A=2
Fetal children are viable for a significant amount of the time that this procedure is performed. So, in these cases the fetal child would not have to even exist dependent of the mother, much less possibly cause health risks to the mother.
Considering that it comprises only 10 percent of abortions, it would not unduly affect choices for abortions if it were outlawed. Furthermore, based on the facts of viability, the health issues regarding banning this would be essentially irrelevant anyway.
As you can see, this type of practice is unnecessary as well as inhumane. I believe it would be rational and constructive for us as a society to evolve past this. To find out what you can do about it visit “Stop Fetal Dismemberment Abortion” on facebook.com.
> Comments
Thomas Shanks on Feb 19, 2008 at 11:22 AM:
I looked up that medical diagram. That is down right sick. I can't believe we have psychos who do that for a living. Nice article though.
MK on Feb 19, 2008 at 02:52 PM:
Holy crap! This makes partial birth abortion look civil. That is insane, I can't beleive they allow that
I'm normally in the middle on abortion but I'm definitely against this.
Compassionate Conservative on Feb 19, 2008 at 03:25 PM:
And yet you fully support the murder of over 1 million Iraqi civilians, primarily women and children...
And you are against programs that would actually feed, clothe, and educate American children (who are actually born)...
Where's the consistency?
Of course this procedure is appalling. The reality of the situation is that abortion numbers are directly related to poverty rates. You actively support policies that make the rich richer and poor poorer, thus leading to (surprise!) more abortions.
And then we have this abstinence only sex education. Not only does it not work, but it is a fundamental violation of human rights. Citizens of a democratic, civilized society deserve to know how their body works, not what the Christian Right thinks they should do with it.
Unless you provide a solution that works (sorry, but this is probably in the form of increased spending on social programs), the whole abortion argument is a straw man.
No one is "pro-abortion." But the so-called "pro-life" movement flatly refuses to explore solutions other than over-turning Roe v. Wade. You of all people should be against laws for the sake of laws. So let's hear some REAL solutions. Let's think outside the box.
Johanan Raatz on Feb 19, 2008 at 05:30 PM:
"And yet you fully support the murder of over 1 million Iraqi civilians, primarily women and children..."
No I support the liberation of over 27 million Iraqi's I'm not going to let you use silly rhetoric to try to turn this on its head. Another thing it's kind of absurd to use the largest statistic you can find especially when that estimate that high are not even close to the generally accepted numbers. General Tommy Franks, who is far more reliable a source than the sources giving out those insanely high numbers says that after the Iraqi invasion was around 30000. After that the death toll would likely be less than that. Also much of the death toll now is caused by the very people we are trying to stop. Additionally it's absurd to accuse the people who are trying to stop the terrorists of being the bad guys here.
"And you are against programs that would actually feed, clothe, and educate American children (who are actually born)..."
No I'm not. You confuse me with others. I do not want rawlsian style socialism but I am in favor of a basic safety net that would take care of peoples basic needs in extreme cases.
Where's the consistency?
I've explained my views are consistent above. Now what about your consistency? Do you oppose fetal rights? If so then you opposition to the Iraq war is hypocritical. Even if the largest statistic is correct(1.2M) then the number of people killed during the entire 5 years of the Iraq war would be equal to the number of people killed by anti-fetal rights abortion laws every single year. If you want to stop more deaths faster opposing abortion more than you oppose the Iraq war would be logical.
"But the so-called "pro-life" movement flatly refuses to explore solutions other than over-turning Roe v. Wade."
Well I can not speak for others but I would like to explore ALL solutions including overturning Roe V Wade. I understand that the abortion issue is complex and therefore it will require full spectrum dominance to bulldoze current abortion policy.
I'm not as opposed to birth control the way
"You actively support policies that make the rich richer and poor poorer, thus leading to (surprise!) more abortions."
Don't confuse me with others. Yes I support capitalism but that doesn't mean I'm gungho about it. I'm a two cheers for capitalism kind of guy. I support because I think its better than communism but understand that it is also flawed.
"Unless you provide a solution that works (sorry, but this is probably in the form of increased spending on social programs), the whole abortion argument is a straw man."
Actually I've thought it through and I have a number of ideas and strategies to reducing abortion. Though I am not opposed to social programs in general my ideas in this area involve more social engineering than social programs.
"And then we have this abstinence only sex education. Not only does it not work, but it is a fundamental violation of human rights. Citizens of a democratic, civilized society deserve to know how their body works, not what the Christian Right thinks they should do with it."
Actually that is not their right. Citizens of an enlightened civilized REPUBLIC should receive moral education not values neutral education.
Education without a moral dimension leads to an increase in sophistry in society. People using their intelligence for bad ends. Look this up about the historical sophists because I mean this litterally here.
Also I do not think this morality needs come from religion. Religions usually only adapt moral codes bred into us through sociobiological means. I think that a values based sex-ed that teaches the mode of sexuality deemed optimal by human evolutionary psychology and universal Kantian ideals should be taught. Also I think that because public schooling recieves state funding the school system ought to teach morality because it is in the interests of the state to do so. Murdering the states children is not in the interests of the state.
Johanan Raatz on Feb 19, 2008 at 05:56 PM:
"No one is "pro-abortion.""
Except perhaps the people who are trying to get abortions.
Terry on Feb 20, 2008 at 01:20 PM:
Sick. Women are psychos and should be jailed.
Terry on Feb 20, 2008 at 01:21 PM:
Sorry embarassing typo.
Women who do this are psychos and should be jailed.
I. Kant on Feb 20, 2008 at 05:52 PM:
Because fetuses are not rational agents we owe them much less than the women who carry them (who are rational agents). The women's rights always trump the fetus'.
Johanan Raatz on Feb 20, 2008 at 06:38 PM:
Because fetuses are not rational agents we owe them much less than the women who carry them (who are rational agents). The women's rights always trump the fetus'.
No your equivocating here. They are rational agents in that they are beings that are continuous with rational minds.
You see sleeping people or comatose people are in the same mental state yet we would consider killing them to be the killing of rational agents.
You have to remember that you WERE a fetal child at one point and so that fetal child has the same worth as you because it was the same being as you.
MK on Feb 21, 2008 at 08:15 AM:
"You have to remember that you WERE a fetal child at one point and so that fetal child has the same worth as you because it was the same being as you."
That's a good point. I've never thought of it like that.
KM on Feb 21, 2008 at 01:08 PM:
"You have to remember that you WERE a fetal child at one point and so that fetal child has the same worth as you because it was the same being as you."
A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.
Johanan Raatz on Feb 21, 2008 at 04:19 PM:
"A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square."
Yes but a person is an identity. Something that shares an identity is the same thing as what it shares an identity with. Not all rectangles share identities with squares. The same can not be said about fetal children and what they become when they are grown up. Because they literally are the same entity.
If you disagree with this identity property of personhood you can construct a rational theory of personhood as the only other relevant property is intelligence
Johanan Raatz on Feb 21, 2008 at 04:21 PM:
Oops accidentally posted too soon.
If you disagree with this identity property of personhood you can construct a rational theory of personhood as the only other relevant property is intelligence, and intelligence is a property not a subject. A person however is a subject.