|
|
Introduction: What Are Partial-Birth Abortions? ‘Partial-birth abortion’ is a term coined by pro-life campaigners to refer to ‘dilation and evacuation’ or ‘Intrauterine Cranial Decompression’ abortions. This procedure is usually performed on women five or more months pregnant, and involves the following: the woman’s cervix is dilated, and the fetus is pulled from the womb feet-first. The head remains within the mother’s body. The surgeon pierces the fetus’ skull, inserts a suction tube, and extracts the fetus’ brain. Naturally, this results in the destruction of the fetus. The fetus’ skull then collapses, allowing the remains to be easily extracted from the mother.1 As one might expect, this form of abortion is extremely controversial, to a far greater extent than other forms of abortion. Arguments Against Partial-Birth Abortions Of course, when analyzing the arguments against partial-birth abortions, we should also remember that all the standard arguments against abortion in general do apply. From a pro-life point of view, a fetus is an independent living being – no different from any other human. Therefore any act which involves deliberately destroying a fetus is in effect murder. Even so, the nature of partial-birth abortions distinguishes them from other forms. Murderers are often given increased punishments based on the level of brutality and sadism involved in their crimes. For example, many states will only use the death penalty if a murderer is found to have fulfilled the criteria for one or more ‘aggravating circumstances’.2 Hence it is understandable that pro-life groups would be especially hostile towards partial-birth abortions, and see them as an even greater crime than other forms of abortion. The act of sucking a child’s brains from its skull (when put simply in those terms), is something which one might expect to find within a particularly depraved horror movie, not in the hospitals of a civilized nation. Colorado Democrat Patricia Schroeder apparently found this procedure so abhorrent that she forced a vote to prevent images of it being shown to congressional members.3 Indeed, pictures of partial-birth abortions are rather disturbing, regardless of one’s stance on the abortion issue. If one considers a fetus to be a living human being, then partial-birth abortions are clearly monstrous. Even if one does not, the nature of the procedure is still rather unsettling. Another major factor is the age of the fetus. Critics claim that partial-birth abortions are frequently performed in the third trimester of a woman’s pregnancy. A fetus which is a few days or weeks old is clearly not viable. One twenty weeks old, however, is a different matter. At that stage a fetus is far more developed. If removed from the womb, for example, it can survive for hours under the power of its own lungs.4 In addition, the fetus may well be able to experience pain at this stage5, making partial-birth abortions an act of extreme cruelty. Destroying a fetus which is a few days old is one thing – at this stage it could be more easily argued that it is a collection of tissues rather than a child; and it most likely does not have sufficient neurological faculties to properly appreciate pain. In the third trimester, however, these arguments seem rather harder to swallow.
|
