A wonderfully written article that tore tiny holes of pain in my newfound blogjoy:
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/if_someone_wanted_to_publish_my
I would like to say for the benefit of my audience, which so far consists of Brandon and Benji, that I'm really not sure what direction my blog is going in. I'm hoping to keep it on something of an academic level, but I can't make any promises about future drunken rants. Maybe I'll set up a separate blog for more personal use. Who knows! I live on the edge!
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Partial Birth Abortions
There are many misconceptions regarding the use of the term "partial-birth abortion." This procedure was officially banned in 2003, when the US Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Exceptions are made only if a woman's life is in danger; no exception is allowed if the woman's health is in danger. The topic has recently become a household issue again. In April of 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the ban as constitutional, a decision that was lauded by conservatives but sparked a firestorm of criticism from liberals.
The misconceptions about partial-birth abortion begin with the very definition of the phrase. The term was coined in 1995 but has never been adopted by medical organizations; instead, it is a term used to "frame" the abortion argument. "Partial-birth abortion" has more negative connotations than the medically used term "intact dilation and extraction," or IDX.
The definition of late-term abortions is also varied. Generally, an abortion is considered "late-term" if it occurs after the 18th to the 22nd week, depending on which source you use for the definition. While many people picture a third trimester pregnancy when they think of late-term abortions, the majority occur between the 20th and 24th week of pregnancy.
Contrary to popular belief, so-called partial-birth abortions are not synonymous with late-term abortions. To put it simply, all IDX procedures are late-term abortions, but the vast majority of late-term abortions are not IDX procedures. In fact, for the year 2000, 1.4% of all abortions were late-term, defined as after the 21st week of pregnancy. 15% of those late-term abortions were performed using the IDX procedure; these statistics bring the overall percentage of IDX procedures to a mere 0.17% of all abortions.
The IDX procedure differs from other procedures in a way graphically described by the term "partial-birth abortion." The cervix is dilated and the fetus is brought partially through the vagina, so that typically only the head remains inside the birth canal. The brain is removed from the head, at which point the skull collapses and the rest of the fetus can be removed.
While this description might sound particularly grotesteque, it is important to note that other abortion procedures are still legal, including those that require the doctor to dismember the fetus inside the woman's body. The IDX procedure has been banned only because the fetus' body is partially removed - or birthed - prior to dismemberment. This particular procedure actually leaves the fetus much more intact than other abortion procedures. The IDX procedure allows the parents to grieve for the fetus, whether it was aborted for medical reasons or because the fetus was "unwanted."
My conclusions: I disagree with this ban and the Supreme Court ruling. The IDX procedure differs from other procedures only in that it seems a little more grotesque, but I fail to see why it matters (from a moral standpoint) whether the fetus is outside or inside the body. I feel for any parents who need to get an abortion either because the child is essentially braindead or because the mother's health is in danger. If they want to grieve, this ruling forces them to do so over a completely dismembered corpose, rather than one that is mostly intact. On the other hand, the ruling leaves plenty of opportunity for women to seek alternative abortion methods.
My primary sources for this post were various studies and journal reports from the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). You can access these databases at http://www.guttmacher.org .
The misconceptions about partial-birth abortion begin with the very definition of the phrase. The term was coined in 1995 but has never been adopted by medical organizations; instead, it is a term used to "frame" the abortion argument. "Partial-birth abortion" has more negative connotations than the medically used term "intact dilation and extraction," or IDX.
The definition of late-term abortions is also varied. Generally, an abortion is considered "late-term" if it occurs after the 18th to the 22nd week, depending on which source you use for the definition. While many people picture a third trimester pregnancy when they think of late-term abortions, the majority occur between the 20th and 24th week of pregnancy.
Contrary to popular belief, so-called partial-birth abortions are not synonymous with late-term abortions. To put it simply, all IDX procedures are late-term abortions, but the vast majority of late-term abortions are not IDX procedures. In fact, for the year 2000, 1.4% of all abortions were late-term, defined as after the 21st week of pregnancy. 15% of those late-term abortions were performed using the IDX procedure; these statistics bring the overall percentage of IDX procedures to a mere 0.17% of all abortions.
The IDX procedure differs from other procedures in a way graphically described by the term "partial-birth abortion." The cervix is dilated and the fetus is brought partially through the vagina, so that typically only the head remains inside the birth canal. The brain is removed from the head, at which point the skull collapses and the rest of the fetus can be removed.
While this description might sound particularly grotesteque, it is important to note that other abortion procedures are still legal, including those that require the doctor to dismember the fetus inside the woman's body. The IDX procedure has been banned only because the fetus' body is partially removed - or birthed - prior to dismemberment. This particular procedure actually leaves the fetus much more intact than other abortion procedures. The IDX procedure allows the parents to grieve for the fetus, whether it was aborted for medical reasons or because the fetus was "unwanted."
My conclusions: I disagree with this ban and the Supreme Court ruling. The IDX procedure differs from other procedures only in that it seems a little more grotesque, but I fail to see why it matters (from a moral standpoint) whether the fetus is outside or inside the body. I feel for any parents who need to get an abortion either because the child is essentially braindead or because the mother's health is in danger. If they want to grieve, this ruling forces them to do so over a completely dismembered corpose, rather than one that is mostly intact. On the other hand, the ruling leaves plenty of opportunity for women to seek alternative abortion methods.
My primary sources for this post were various studies and journal reports from the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). You can access these databases at http://www.guttmacher.org .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
