kittinSol -> RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion (7/20/2007 8:23:40 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Level BATON ROUGE, Louisiana - Louisiana became the first American state Friday to outlaw a controversial abortion procedure that involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion. The new law allows the procedure in only one situation at any time during pregnancy: when failure to perform it would endanger the mother's life. The procedure would be a crime in all other cases, even if the pregnancy is expected to cause health problems for the mother. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19753751 The term 'partial birth' was coined in the mid-nineties by a pro-life congressman. The purpose of naming the procedure that way was to mobilise pro-lifers around this particular issue with the aim to eventually bring a complete ban on all abortions in the United States. The ugly semantics worked their sweet way into the subconscious of the nation. Soon, people were up in arms over a procedure that's a last resort medical decision made by doctors. Intact D&E isn't a pretty thing. Then again few medical interventions belong in Disneyworld. But what's the alternative? Suppose a woman's pregnancy is found to be going badly, to the point where the fetus will die at birth, or even before. Imagine such a pregnancy jeopardises the woman's health to the point she may die from it. Let's assume nobody here has yet decided that this woman should be denied the right to terminate a pregnancy that's endangering her life. The doctors have two choices: they can tear the fetus from limb to limb in utero and extract it that way, thus causing a huge risk of uterine tearing - and possibly death to the woman. Or they can decide to perform an intact D&E. If they do this, the fetus is anaesthetized (anaesthesia given to the woman passes through the placenta). It means it is taken out of the woman's body intact. It seems much more respectful for all concerned, and especially to the fetus. I suspect it must be a little difficult on the practionner: but they are highly trained professional people. I have yet to see why this ban matters to those who would like to prevent abortions, since it will not prevent a single abortion from occurring. It will only mean that doctors will use a technique that kills the fetus just as surely as intact D&E, in a more gruesome way, and with a real possibility of producing more complications for the woman. Perhaps that's what they want, a return to the backstreet abortions of old, where woman were torn open with metal wire and knitting needles? It matters to me that doctors are able to make the medical decisions they deem best for their patients without having people with a political agenda intervene with those decisions. I trust the doctors more than those that govern us. Fancy that, aye?
|
|
|
|