Supreme Court argues "Partial Birth Abortion"

Can you name a case in which it is necessary to kill a partially birthed child in order to protect the life of its mother? 

I can't, but I'm not a docor. So I'll defer to the 11 of 12 doctors congress subpoened.

Maybe some BT doctors can weigh in.

For myself, I can't think of a case in which it would risk the life of the mother to just continue and birth the head of the baby, instead of sticking a pair of scissors in it.

At least then, the baby would have a chance to live.

Actually, it seems to me the the PBA procedure puts the mother at more risk.  But that's just the opinion of a photographer.

From what I've read, the procedure is done almost exclusively in the second trimester, when the fetus isn't viable. To me at least, that's a totally different case than if the procedure were performed on a viable fetus. But the law passed by congress bans the procedure exclusively--and that's another reason the law is flawed.

It's not congress' job to tell doctors what procedures they can and can't perform to help their patients. At least in my opinion.

If the procedure weren't medically necessary, I would oppose it. BUt apparently the vast majority of doctors believe it is sometimes a medically-necessary procedure. And again, I think this is a separate argument from a strict pro-choice/anti-abortion issue.

But there is another aspect of the procedure: it is used occasionally to terminate pregnancies involving horrible birth defects. I were carrying a fetus with a birth defect so severe that it was unsurvivable post partum, I think I'd want the option to have the procedure.

I believe that indirect abortion, where the procedure is to protect the mother's life, is legitimate.  It falls under the principle of double effect.  The baby may die, but the point of the procedure was not to kill the baby, but to save the mother.

In the case of partial birth abortion, why not just birth the baby and try and save it?

I'd say, it's because partial birth abortion is legal infanticide.  It's allowed because of a legal loophole based on a flawed Supreme Court decision.

If someone supports partial birth abortion, why not go all the way and support infanticide.  What would prevent your support of that.

And if you suport infanticide, why not the killing of other groups deemed unworthy of life? 

Not to hijack, but I think these current issues should give us pause to seriously think about "life" again.  The baby's life, the mother's life, a prisoner's life, the potential life of a fetus.  We've discussed related issues in COJ recently such as the Stem Cell Amendment in MO, hanging Saddam, and now Partial Birth Abortion.

All of these topics have refreshed the debate in my mind.  My basic philosophy is that when life or creation of life is concerned it's "hand's off". 

Hand's off by the gov, docs, voters, judge's, etc. 

And I'm rethinking my position (or lack of a previous one) on capital punishment....haven't come to a conclusion yet, but getting close.

Why not fully birth the baby and then euthanize the baby painlessly?  Why kill it by sticking a pair of scissors into its brain? 

But it's the doc's job to put their hands on, isn't it?

Jim, I don't mean to jump on you about this.  I'm feeling a little punchy from staying up too late last night.

The rhetoric in the OP drives me nuts.

Saying that partial birth abortion is about the health of the mother is like saying that invading Iraq was about WMD.  It's just rhetoric used to push through another agenda.

In the case of partial birth abortion, the agenda is to have the license to kill a group of people deemed unworthy.

If this is the case, let's at least have an honest debate about it.  The debate ought to be about infanticide.  Do the American people want infanticide.  Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

What a moral dilemma they must have in instances where there's a "survival" choice.  Mother or baby; this twin or that twin.  I can't imagine the ethical struggle they go through.

From my philosophy, their part would always be preservation from conception on.  Quality should not be a doc's determination.  I realize this brings up the issue of "when does life begin"....which is a whole other thread.

But Don, isn't the argument against total rhetoric? For example, the term "partial birth abortion" isn't a medical term, but it's used in the language of the law. Why is it used? For inflammatory purposes and to make it an anti-abortion law and not what it really is. Isn't the fact that the law before the court banning *all* use of this procedure nothing but rhetoric? Why wasn't the law written with an exception to preserve the health/life of the mother? Because the authors of the law want to use it as a tool down the road of overturning Roe.

The argument against the law boils down to the rights of doctors to do their jobs. Congress ignored the opinions of  the doctors, and passed the law based on rhetoric. Not on reason.

Absolutely. That's why they get the big bucks, I guess.

I'd like a doctor to explain to me why it is necessary to kill a baby while its head is still in the birth canal instead of letting the head birth alive. I'd like to understand why this is necessary to protect the life of the mother.

The head needs to birth either way.  Why does a live head put the mother at risk but a dead head does not? 

As to reason. You know me, Jim. I believe the only reasonable position is to be pro-life. The dominant pro-choice position seems tragically inconsistent and illogical to me.

The only pro-choice position that does seem well reasoned, is the one that would allow for infanticide and other forms of involuntary euthanasia. The most articulate spokesman of this position is Peter Singer of Princeton.

If anyone seriously wants to build the world that Singer envisions, I'd like to know why.

Also, what would this position do to rights of those who remain in the dominant position? How could you claim, for example, that slavery was wrong based on a moral argument?

The AMA policy on this procedure.

http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-5.982.HTM

Also for consideration:

http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2002/07/24/late_term/index.html

<this has been a good discussion so far...i was really worried about posting this thread>

You. Worried about a controversial thread? We know better :-)

Jim, thanks for starting this thread, thanks for being you.

You're one of the main people that makes this place worth spending time on.

Seriously...I was. Abortion is sensitive enough, but just discussing this procedure gives me the willies.

That means alot, Don. Thanks. And vice versa, of course.