Partial-birth abortion

[Larry Flyntz]

I know we've done the abortion debate numerous times, but this is legitimately different. The weird thing about the partial-birth abortion debate is that it recognizes abortion as a right and separates partial-birth abortion from that right. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 clearly states that abortion is a Constitutional right.

So, the question I want to consider is "Why/how is partial-birth abortion fundamentally different than 'regular' abortion and why is that distinction enough to ban PBAs?" This is accepting, of course, that abortion is a Constitutionally protected right.

For the sake of clarity, the PBABA defines partial-birth abortion as "an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant."

I, personally, do not see the fundamental difference between this and regular abortion. It seems to me that the main difference is where the abortion takes place: one takes place inside the womb; the other, outside. I think the ban is simply a step in the direction of trying to ban abortions on the whole. After all, if Congress keeps chipping away at abortion rights, eventually, nothing will be left.

[aeg5014]

In what phase do partial birth abortions occur?

I think it has to be either the 2nd or 3rd trimester, and in that case the argument is that the fetus has gone through enough devolpment to be considered some form of life, not a life mind you, but some form of it.

Also it could just be the gruesome nature of the procedure.

These aren't facts, these are just my thoughts of some reasons. I'm probably off by miles on this one though, but hey, i tried.

[Larry Flyntz]

Partial-birth abortions are almost always "late term," or 2nd & 3rd trimester.

[TheOfficer]

It gets sticky, and I agree with you to some degree.
It gets into that whole, "but when does life begin" bullshit. Why would a child, dependent upon the mother throughout gestation and pregnancy, suddenly become more of a human being at 8 months than at 1 month. It doesn't make sense to me either. I think the truth of the matter is partial-birth abortion seems a lot more gruesome because there are actual chunky bits to pull out of the blamblorg. People just don't like to actually be able to distinguish what it is thats coming out. Aborting a leg is probably more traumatizing than a bloody blob.
This is from a person that sees the fetus as a parasite until it takes its first fucking breath of air, though.

[Larry Flyntz]

I definitely agree with that. Partial-birth abortions are extremely gruesome. My biggest concern is that the amount of shock that comes from a specific medical procedure will determine its medical validity. Just because something is gruesome does not mean it is inappropriate.

[TheOfficer]

I feel like I should say I don't agree just to spice up the debate, but that would be sort of silly.
I agree completely. Surgery in general is anything but sunshine and rainbows. You can't really take the blood, chunks, and gore out of it.
One day people will understand that abortion is a necessity.

[Rhino......................]

Abortion is ugly, but people don't like to be reminded of how ugly it is. I guess it's tougher to assign pretty gumdrop nonhuman names to something that's clearly a baby being born, so people have more trouble allowing that. Don't get me wrong; I think abortion should be legal for other reasons, but I think the "a fetus isn't a person" argument is really, really goddamn stupid. It doesn't go through some magical portal that turns it into a person (except the blamblorg lol). I really don't get how that argument even holds any weight. If anyone can tell me why, feel free.

[Larry Flyntz]

I think the "a fetus isn't a person" argument is really, really goddamn stupid.

My interpretation is more "a fetus isn't a citizen." In that regard, laws don't apply to fetuses, therefore fetuses don't have rights, therefore abortion is okay.  That's very simplified, but I think it makes a lot more sense than "a fetus isn't a person."

[oatmeal fetish....]

My interpretation is more "a fetus isn't a citizen." In that regard, laws don't apply to fetuses, therefore fetuses don't have rights, therefore abortion is okay.  That's very simplified, but I think it makes a lot more sense than "a fetus isn't a person."

Yet non-citizens and non-people can still have laws and rights applied to them. If an old person dies he can, in his will, leave his money to his unborn child - that fetus has a right to it.

Also I can't see any justification between "fetuses don't have rights" and "abortion is okay." Dogs don't have any rights, but its not okay to kill them.

I actually agree with you for the most part on this issue, but be careful with your arguments.

[Larry Flyntz]

Dogs don't have any rights, but its not okay to kill them.

Two possible explanations for that: one, either you're wrong and dogs do have rights, or two, the dog's owner has rights, and killing the dog would infringe on those rights. The latter is not a problem with abortion, because killing the fetus would infringe on the mother's rights, but she is the one choosing to kill the fetus, so there is no infringement of rights going on.

[oatmeal fetish....]

Dogs do not have rights as citizens.

And what if you own the dog?

[Larry Flyntz]

And what if you own the dog?

Malicious behavior against animals has long been a sign of future violence against humans. It is in the interest of the government to punish this sort of violence. Similarly, if you think killing your dog is neat-o, what's to stop you from killing your neighbor's dog? Violent people tend to continue to be violent, so there is definitely an interest in halting violence against animals.

[oatmeal fetish....]

So we're in agreement that killing dogs, even though they have no rights as a citizen is bad? Because that causes some problems with the idea that killing a fetus is okay only because it doesn't have any rights.

[Larry Flyntz]

Killing a dog is only bad in the sense that it either directly affects or could possibly affect humans. You killing my dog hurts me. You killing your dog is a risk factor for you hurting other dogs or other people. So, you're either directly infringing on peoples' rights or showing that you might infringe on peoples' rights. This isn't really a problem with abortion, either.

As I said, I was making an extremely simplified version of the argument. I'll expand it now. Obviously, something/someone not being a citizen isn't an invitation to kill that thing/person. After all, if your Canadian friend comes to visit, I can't very well kill him or her. However, the U.S. government has an interest in preserving the lives of Canadians. After all, if the Canadian government found out that the U.S. was allowing mass killings of Canadian tourists, it'd be pretty upset. So, the U.S. has a responsibility for the lives of Canadians within its borders. So, the question is "when does the U.S. government have an interest in fetal life?" Some would say "at conception," sure, because "life is sacred" or whatever, but moral judgments and religious sayings don't float my boat, so I'd like more explanation.

All government interference requires some sort of balancing act. Government interest v. private interest. I would argue that the government interest in preserving canine life is stronger than the interest in preserving fetal life. Also, the private interest in ending fetal life is stronger (in most cases) than the interest in ending canine life. So, the scale is tipped in favor of abortion, I think.

Or, to answer your question a lot more briefly... yes.

[TheOfficer]

This is going to be a female take on things, mainly because Davey asked.
A fetus isn't a person/citizen/whatever in my eyes for one very important reason. Its still dependent upon the mother for a vast majority of the time it spends in the uterus. It is not a citizen because it is essentially a parasite, feeding off of the mothers nutrients and energy so that it may sustain itself and grow. It has not become its own power just yet, and if anything, is a sliver of a person and citizen (I.E. Mama). I think it passes through the "portal" into citizenship the exact day that it could be extracted from the mothers womb and live outside of her body. (So what, 7/8 months?) Until then, A mother would essentially be removing a part of her own body at her own will and violation. This is how I have always looked at abortions and will conitnue to do so.

[Rhino......................]

I understand that point of view, but from that stance it could be argued that a full grown person dependent on life support is essentially part of the life support machine. Then again, machines don't have autonomy and can't choose to turn themselves off, so it's not exactly the same thing. I'd say a more accurate representation of personhood revolves around the idea of free will. A fetus has never had, and cannot have free will, therefore it cannot make decisions one way or another and is entirely dependent on the mother, whereas a person on life support at least has already had the experience of being a free-thinking autonomous individual.

Having said that, I think euthenasia is A-OK.

[Larry Flyntz]

A fetus has never had, and cannot have free will

A fetus can have free will if it is allowed to develop. If you take issue with the past existence of free will, why not take issue with the future existence of free will? I mean, a fetus does not have free will, be will have free will. A person on life support does not have free will, but did in the past, and may not ever again.  If that very last part is true, it would seem that fetuses are more human than people on life support, for they will have the capacity for free will, whereas life support patients will not.

But, the whole idea of free will has to be defined. For instance, does someone with severe mental retardation have free will? Can you have free will without the mental capacity to understand the world around you? If not, then killing retarded people would not be homicide.

[Coney_Island_n*gga1983]

(A fetus can only have free will if it is allowed to develop into a person, at which point it is not a fetus anymore.)

[Smiff]

--The world is overpopulated
--Our government, and most religious groups, condone killing of criminals and the possibly innocent, and also do little to stem the murder rate in many poor areas (ie, Baltimore, @ 300 murders per year, mostly young, poor, black males)
--not to mention sending thousands of soldiers to Iraq, which is another thread entirely

Why are a bunch of cells that even the mother doesn't want so valuable?

Even partial-birth abortions are done on fetuses so young and tiny that they're not much more than a large cluster of cells, dependent on its host, or parent.  It is extrodinarily rare for a fetus past the first trimester to be aborted, and then only in cases where a)it has a fatal birth defect or b)poses a severe threat to its mother's life.

I don't see why this is a big deal, other than the political benefit of polarizing the nation.  If pro-lifers really wanted the women of this country to have less abortions, they would protest against puritan sex education and for readily available and affordable birth control for any girl or woman of child-bearing age.

[The Ocean]

Fetuses are delicious.