Kevin I like you. You don't lie about getting accepted to certain schools and don't have problems reading. Such a rare thing!

-Rudey

But wouldn't the partial birth procedure be just as risky? I wouldn't kill the child in that case.

Risky? Sure. But so is the potential complications should the child miscarry that late (serious infections, etc) or she actually have the child (if there's the possibility that delivery could be fatal). The child may die anyways, but there's no need for the mother to die as well.

Of course, I'm not neglecting the possibility that the abortion itself could be fatal for both of them as well. Nothing's guaranteed, but doctors and patients make the best decisions they can with what they have.

From what I've read, the partial birth procedure doesn't sound very different from a regular premature delivery other than the fact that the baby is killed prior from being completely removed from the mother. How is that less risky than an actual premature delivery?

If you read the link that sugar and spice provided on page 3 under the 3rd trimester it talks in more detail about abortion options during that time. There's the option of doing a sort of C-section, but that creates a greater possibility of infection, since it's literally cutting the mother open. The baby may or may not be alive during this procedure. The other option is to kill the baby (yes this is terribly graphic and does bother me) and then extract it by inducing artificial labor and extracting the fetus/baby with forceps. It's easier in that the doctor is easier able to "deliver" the baby without worrying about the effect of the forceps on its head.
I agree with you in that it is scary. Around 3000 are performed yearly, so thankfully this isn't a common procedure.

I didn't realize that a D/X on an already dead fetus was still considered an abortion (according to sugarandspice's link, anyway). In that case, yes, of course, remove it. However, if the fetus is still living, then I wouldn't procede with it.

If the fetus were still living, what, then would you do? This is assuming that the pregnancy must be terminated for whatever immediately pressing medical reason.

It depends on the situation. I'd likely opt for a c-section and see what our modern medical technology can do. I'd also have the child baptized right away, so he/she would be with God if nothing else works.

I'm sorry, its mad early (I beat the rooster up), but not to early that I can't see through the BS.

This really irks me. Let's cut the "medically necessary" bull. 9 out of 10 abortions (my own basic statistic) of any kind are NOT medically necessary. The mother may feel its monetarily necessary, or vanity-ly necessary (yes I made up a word), or Idontwantababythatsnotcompletelyperfect necessary, but rarely medically necessary. Come on, if the mother was THAT sick, they'd deliver the baby by c-section ALIVE and do what they could to save it while treating the mother for whatever she has. In the case of a stillborn, DUH. That's shouldn't even have to be said out loud. It already died of natural causes. But even still, I want my baby intact to bury him or her properly.

Really the whole issue of abortions is a crock folks made up to avoid responsibility for their actions. Your CHOICE should have been to keep the innie out of the outie, or use contraceptives, but since you didn't, deal with it. Life is life is life. No person should take whether its a ba...sorry, fetus :rolleyes:, or a criminal. Its not our place to take life.

*going back to my paper now*

The miscarriage argument is moot here. Since the baby is delivered the same way a normal premature baby would be delivered, that is just not even an argument.

When the baby is viable (according to what I've read) it's only 6 inches long. And there's always a ceasarean option.

The "health of the mother" argument really doesn't hold much water in this case since the delivery and the abortion procedure are the same thing (except in one, they puncture the skull and suck out the brains). Other than that, they're the same;)

What about rape? Incest? Should some poor girl who got gang-raped on the way home from the bus stop be forced to carry that child? What about a girl pregnant by her older brother? Father? Grandfather? The sick priest down the block?

Although I do commend you for at least taking a completely pro-life stance.

eta: ktsnake, the viability argument is one that's likely going to be in the SC soon. When Stenberg was decided, there was a very clear seperation of when a fetus was or was not viable. Nowadays, thanks to medical technology, the line of viability is being pushed further back and starting to intercept with the time in which it's legal to have an abortion. (IF this sentence doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll try to explain it better) I think my big issues is something like the situation like honeychile described. Keeping the baby alive for over 100,000 a year for 365 days? How many unwanted children could have been adopted for that amount instead? How many victims of rape and incest could have received the appropriate care and counseling?

Wouldn't a rape victim have had an abortion during her first trimester?

re-read the post that GP quoted. then you will understand why she brought up rape and incest victims.

oops

Also regarding rape - if the victim seeks treatment immediately, she can take the emergency contraception.