Partial birth abortion, scientifically known as intact dilation and extraction or D&X, is designed primarily to be used in the five and six month old fetuses (3rd-trimester) that are dying, malformed, or threaten the woman’s health or life, according to the American Medical Journal. The procedure involves pulling the fetus from the womb, except for the head, which is too large to pass without injuring the woman. The head is then collapsed to allow removal. The procedure is designed specifically to ensure the maximum protection of the woman. The late term alternative to partial-birth abortion, one that does not require partial removal, involves dismembering the fetus in the womb before extraction. This procedure, however, is performed with a much greater risk.
People pose an argument that it is not all abortions that they object to, but merely “partial-birth” abortions. The problem with that is that state laws banning partial birth abortions establish precedent for criminalizing other types of abortion. Those who are truly pro-life advocates must grasp the ominous implications of the motives behind such proposed anti-abortion laws, before it is too late.
Abortion abolitionist have portrayed the term “partial-birth” to suggest that the partially removed fetus is no longer unborn, and therefore the Roe vs. Wade decision no longer applies. Liberals point out that linguistic manipulation cannot create an essential distinction when it does not exist. A woman has a right to her own body, and if she chooses to have an abortion, then all efforts should be made to protect the woman from injury; just as in any other health situation. To do otherwise, negates this right. The banning of rights to protect the unborn fetus is literally granting rights to the fetus over the rights of the woman, which in this case is an utter distortion of individual rights. If a woman has no rights to her own body, then by what validity does a fetus have the right to a woman’s body?
Making the fetus an individual separate from the woman has great potential to create barriers to health care for pregnant women with illnesses. Take this situation for instance, would a pregnant woman with cancer be able to access potentially life saving radiation, since such treatment could harm the pregnancy? This situation gives prime example to the negation of women’s rights due to the unborn fetus. The bigger picture asks us, “When does life begin?” Does life begin with pregnancy or when the fetus leaves the womb? Those questions have still yet to be answered. It is without a doubt that throughout the pregnancy there is a life within the woman’s body, but due to modern day testing and technology we can now tell many things about the unborn fetus. In this new day and age we can almost always detect complications with the birth or fetus before hand; so with that put into light, if a known complication with the fetus exits to the extent of death, abortion should be an option.
The proposed banning of partial-birth abortions has become a huge moral issue in America; government is beginning to segregate freedom into levels for today’s women. This should not be tolerated by either you or me. November 14, 2003 marked the end of a 40-hour marathon debate, the longest the Senate has seen in 15 years. Fortunately the democrats (liberals) were successful in putting a hold on Bush’s bill; however, the conservatives ensure us that the debate is far from over.
Unfortunately, many pro-choice advocates have conceded the partial-birth war to the anti-abortionist and except this so called “partial ban” as a compromise. They have obviously been fooled by the abolitionist strategy of emotionalism designed to disguise their deeper purpose. The anti abortionists’ strategy focuses solely on the fetus and describing the abortion procedure in gruesome detail to detour your thought process away from the woman’s rights. Their professed compassion for the fetus leaves no room for considering the life of and giving of compassion to the woman. I hope that you have the compassion to allow women to have rights and to consider saving one life instead of possibly ending two. In the end Pro-Choice is Pro-Life.