Women's advocacy groups consider abortion one of the fundamental
rights of a woman to control her body as she wishes (F1), and with that
right, the absolute right of doctor/patient confidentiality. That was
the argument of groups such as the National Organization for Women when
the landmark trial of Roe v. Wade was heard in the United
States Supreme Court. Other groups, like the National Abortion Rights
Action League or NARAL claim that the ruling of Roe v. Wade "held
that a woman has the right to choose abortion until fetal viability --
the time at which it first becomes realistically possible for a fetus to
live outside the woman's body -- but that the state's interest in the
matter outweighs the woman's right after that point". Accordingly,
Roe held that, after viability, "states may ban any abortions as
they see fit, long as exceptions are made to protect the life and health
of the woman." (F2)
I might also state here for those of you who would like to make the
case for abortion, and a woman's right to choose, based on law and law
alone, with no moral fortitude withstanding, that the argument is upheld
in Roe v. Wade by Justice Blackmun that the viability of
life of the unborn can be hinged on it's survival ability based on
either "natural or artificial means." (F3) Although this is
not to say that the unborn of today are developing any quicker than
those of the early 1970's, but rather vast strides have been made in the
medical field in relation to "fetal viability" and their
ability to attend to pre-mature births (F4) and the direct contrast it
has on a court case that is over a quarter-century old, not to say that
time renders a court case moot, quite the contrary, instead to say that
this particular case should be kept up to date and in step with the laws
of the land. To use a quote that was used by the National Organization
for Women to uphold and propel the case of Roe v. Wade to
fit modern day principle in the early days of the 1970's as the case was
being heard by the United States Supreme Court, their argument was very
similar to the following statement:
"State abortion laws are outdated laws that are
in need of major overhaul, whose court interpretation and demeanor is
out of step with modern times." That was basically the same
argument used by NOW when Roe v. Wade and the abortion issue was
presented to the Supreme Court in the early 1970's.
A Brief Introduction: "Roe v. Wade"
Early Historical Views and The Hippocratic Oath
At the same time in all this debate, history of earlier
civilizations was reviewed and taken into account so as to be some sort
of established guideline to follow to determine our
own destiny. Justice Blackmun noted when reviewing Greek and Roman
law that abortion was practiced freely, with no regard to the unborn,
however if abortion was prosecuted during the age of the Roman Empire,
the basis for doing so was based on the denial of the "father's
rights to his own offspring."
Then there was the great Greek of the medical field known as "Hippocrates,"
who is often referred to as "The Father of Medicine." One of
Hippocrates' great achievements of his day was in writing and
formulating the famous "Hippocratic Oath" which set as a
standard, a set of ethical principles for which future medical
practitioners were to look to as a guiding set of standards in the
medical field. This Oath set forward strict guidelines, which dealt
specifically with the issues of life and death matters. Among them were
matters that dealt with the unborn, and basically gave these words of
promise of a chance to life outside the womb to the unborn children of
that day. In doing so, he knew he was going against the status quo of
the Roman Empire and popular culture of that time. Still, he felt the
need for medicine to protect life instead of destroy it, to uphold the
potential for life, instead of redefining the terms and assigning
meaningless terminology to the stages of the unborn life in order to
justify ending it.
Hippocrates has been long reveled as "the wisest and greatest
practitioner of the art." All medical professionals once held the
Hippocratic Oath in high respect in the medical field, and it states a
clear-cut opinion on abortion, or abortive procedures:
"I will not give to any woman a pessary (F5) to
produce an abortion. I will neither give to anybody a deadly drug if
asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I
will not give to any woman an abortive remedy."
However the Pythagoreans had a very different take on the matter of
an unborn child's life, they considered the fertilized egg as a living
being, and that abortion itself was considered the destruction of a
living being. This belief fell more in line with Christian teaching and
belief that began to emerge soon after, and the Hippocratic Oath came to
be accepted as the "nucleus of all medical ethics" and
"was applauded as the embodiment of truth."
The Rise of Common Law Attitudes
Common law established that abortions performed before
quickening (fetal movement in the womb), which was set at around the
sixteenth to the eighteenth week of pregnancy, was not an indictable
offense. The definition of movement of the unborn was set as one of the
two first principles of life. This was echoed by later common-law
scholars and found its way into the received common law in this country.
Although some legal experts of the time thought it a great crime to
abort a quick fetus, as one bad enough to inflict the penalty of
homicide, some viewed it with a lesser charge of a simple misdemeanor.
England's Law on Abortion
England's first criminal abortion statute came in 1803; it made the
abortion of a quick fetus a capital crime, but provided lesser charges
for abortions performed before quickening,
thus preserving the "quickening decision." This came to be
known as Lord Ellenborough's Act. Then in 1939, a court case was heard
and the law was revised to permit abortion in order to save the life of
the mother.
American Law
In the United States, the law in effect in all but a few
States until the mid-nineteenth century was the pre-existing English
common law. Connecticut, was the first state to enact abortion
legislation. In 1821 it adopted the part of Lord Ellenborough's Act that
related to a woman "quick with child." New York enacted
legislation that, in two respects, was to serve as a model for early
anti-abortion statutes. First, while barring destruction of an
unquickened fetus as well as a quick fetus, the former was considered
only a misdemeanor, while the second was considered second-degree
manslaughter. It also excused abortion if it "shall have been
necessary for such purpose." By the end of the 1950's, a large
majority of the jurisdictions banned abortions, unless done to protect
the life of the mother.
The American Medical Institute's Attitude:
1850's-1970's
In 1857 the American Medical Association's Committee on Criminal
Abortion was appointed. The committee deplored abortion and listed three
root causes that attributed to the public's general demoralization in
regard to the unborn child.
Listed, as the first of these causes was the widespread popular
ignorance of the true character of the crime, in which stood the belief,
even among mothers themselves that the fetus is not alive till after
"quickening."
Second on the list was the fact that the profession themselves are
frequently supposed careless of fetal life...
Thirdly, the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave
defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent
and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being. These
errors, which are sufficient in most instances to prevent conviction,
are based, and only based, upon mistaken and exploded medical dogmas.
"With strange inconsistency, the law fully
acknowledges the fetus in utero and its inherent rights, for civil
purposes; while personally and as criminally affected, it fails to
recognize it, and to its life as yet denies all protection."
Transcript of the American Medical Assn. (1859)
In 1871, the Committee on Criminal Abortion issued a report. In that
report was some strong language concerning the issue of abortion and the
terminology used to describe the developing and unborn child:
"We had to deal with human life. In a matter
of less importance we could entertain no compromise. An honest judge on
the bench would call things by their proper names. We could do no
less."
Transcript of the American Medical Assn. (1871)
Many people today in our society, even those well known to the
Public, and many of those in the medical field holds the viewpoint that
the right of the woman to "choose" supercedes all, but that is
in direct conflict with the attitude of the late Nineteenth century
conclusion of the American Medical Association's Committee on Criminal
Abortion and their take on "potential" human life. It was
recommended in their transcript that it "be unlawful and
unprofessional for any physician to induce abortion or premature labor,
without the concurrent opinion of at least one respectable consulting
physician, and then always with a view to the safety of the child - if
that be possible," and calling "the attention of the clergy of
all denominations to the perverted views of morality entertained by a
large class of females - aye, and men also, on this important
question."
Except for the periodic condemnation of the criminal abortionist, no
further formal AMA action took place until 1967, then the Committee on
Human Reproduction urged the adoption of a stated policy of opposition
to induced abortion, except when there is "documented medical
evidence" of a threat to the health or life of the mother, or that
the child "may be born with incapacitating physical deformity or
mental deficiency," or that the pregnancy "resulting from
legally established statutory or forcible rape or incest may constitute
a threat to the mental or physical health of the [410 U.S.113, 143]
patient," after being examined by "two competent physicians
and signed in writing, and the procedure is performed in a hospital
accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals."
The House of Delegates of the AMA adopted this recommendation in June
1967.
Laws of 1971, Protecting The Unborn Child
In the days when Roe v. Wade was being argued before
the Supreme Court, there were laws on the books in the state of Texas
that dealt with protecting the unborn child from harm that could cause
it's termination. One of them was listed in Footnote One of the Roe
v. Wade court case, and has to do with clarifying Texas law as
it was being discussed in the court case to decide which law was
considered "vague" and "overbroadly infringing" on
the plaintiff's rights. One particular law, which was not attacked in
the case, had to do specifically with the subject of "Destroying
unborn child", Article 1195 of Texas Penal Code, and read as
follows:
"Whoever shall during parturition (F6) of the
mother destroy the vitality of life in a child in a state of being born
and before actual birth, which child would otherwise have been born
alive, shall be confined in the penitentiary for life or for not less
than five years."
Texas Penal Code, Article 1195
Therefore, could we not argue then that according to the basis for Roe
v. Wade, there was still the need to keep in place law that
protected the fetus in "post-viability" status, yet still
unborn, because that law was not attacked in Roe v. Wade?"
That is to say that any child having the capability to survive after the
supposed "viable life state" by "natural or artificial
means" has every right to personhood according to this statute of
Texas law, upheld by the United States Supreme Court, and not
contested in this case of Roe v. Wade by the
Plaintiffs or the Court as being "vague or overbroadly
infringing" on ones rights.
It was pointed out in Roe v. Wade that the Court did
not agree with the arguments that the woman's right was
"absolute" and "that she is entitled to terminate her
pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she
alone chooses." The Court also claimed the "State indeed had
important interests" when it came to "safeguarding health, in
maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life."
The Court determined through these conclusions that there had to be some
kind of control over the factors that govern the abortion decision. The
United States Supreme Court in the outset of Roe v. Wade
adopted the trimester timetable in order to afford them some kind of way
to visually deal with setting parameters on viability, the right of
states to intervene on behalf of the unborn so as to be able to
proscribe abortion if the State saw there was a need to do so in order
to protect the rights of the unborn, yet viable, life inside the mother.
(F7) One major right that arguers like to bring to the table on behalf
of women's rights is the one of "the right of a woman to do with
her body as she chooses." The United States Supreme Court addressed
that issue with two court cases, one concerning vaccination, and the
other concerning sterilization. The Court went on to say that this right
to abortion was not absolute, and ought to have limitations, just as the
previous court cases mentioned were found to be. It also held that the
State had "important interests in legislation" concerning the
matter of abortion.
Now, do these factors set forth in Roe v. Wade by the
Supreme Court of the United States extend to the laws of today in the
effects of abortion on our society and the supposed case of the Texas
statute 1195 that wasn't attacked in Roe, but was actually used to
uphold the rights of the unborn to a certain degree in time of human
gestation? Or has it been silently forgotten, as a footnote in history,
even though it is a major part of the overall decision in the landmark
Court case concerning abortion, known as Roe v. Wade?
The Basis For The Argument For The Right To Abort An
Unborn Child
On the matter of who decides which of our medical establishments or
health institutions are given specific instructions on how or when to
respect, or when they are to take steps necessary to see that they are
"protecting potential life", most of the time
depend upon the heads of the organizations themselves. Justice Harry
Blackmun, who delivered the opinion of the Court in Roe v. Wade,
made the assertion that;
"We need not resolve the difficult question
of when life begins."
"When those trained in the
respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are
unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at
this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a
position to speculate as to the answer."
(Section IV, Roe v. Wade)
Justice Blackmun just admitted in this point in the opinion of the
Court that the Court doesn't know, or doesn't care to pinpoint the
actual "beginning of human life." But the Court clearly leaves
it up to man (gender-neutral) on when to decide to end it, even though
man doesn't know it's "beginning", and in most cases, doesn't
care.
These are direct excerpts from the opinion of the Court. Justice
Blackmun is essentially admitting here that there is no reason to
further investigate the scientific area or medical questioning in order
to establish an understood postulate for the beginning of human life, so
he makes a decision based on past history of how the unborn child has
been viewed in past law, and also, how the unborn is viewed at present
concerning Texas law, specifically, Article 1195 of the Texas code. It
is often mentioned in Roe v. Wade the issue of "protecting
potential life", but that is made little note of by
abortion rights groups of today. There are further mentions made toward
the issue of the importance of not overlooking the
relevance of potential life in Roe v. Wade.
"Courts sustaining state laws have held that the
State's determinations to protect health or prenatal life are dominant
and constitutionally justifiable."
(Section VIII, Roe v. Wade)
"...a State may properly assert important
interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and
in protecting potential life."
(Section VIII, Roe v. Wade)
Many pro-abortion groups would consider a woman's right as one that
is almost absolute, ordained by the Supreme Court in 1973 by the Roe
v. Wade decision and it's sister case of Doe v. Bolton.
But careful examination of the entire case reflects a different demeanor
that the Court was placing on the issue of abortion, although granting
the practice as legal, it did not necessarily leave it without certain
restrictions. One of those restrictions was to safeguard the protection
of potential life. In reviewing past court cases, the
Supreme Court looked at several cases concerning the issue of abortion,
and found that;
"...most of these courts have agreed that the
right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion
decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and
is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the
state interests as to protection of health, medical standards,
and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach."
(Section VIII, Roe v. Wade)
Roe v. Wade set the stage in 1973 for fetal viability,
even though they admitted earlier that they would not speculate "on
when life began", rather they set a time frame in the period of
human gestation that the fetus would become "viable." And this
viability could be based on the ability to survive with the use of
artificial support.
"...the interim point at which the fetus becomes
"viable," that is, potentially able to live outside
the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is
usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur
earlier, even at 24 weeks."
(Section IX, Roe v. Wade)
"With respect to the State's important and
legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point
is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably
has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's
womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus
has both logical and biological justifications. If the
State is interested in protecting fetal life after
viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during
that period, except when it is necessary to preserve
the life or health of the mother."
(Section X, Roe v. Wade)
Point For Thought...
How would the first scientist who performed the first
successful test-tube baby have felt if someone had came into his
laboratory and poured the contents down the drain, looked him in the eye
and responded, "What, it was nothing, it wasn't alive, it wasn't
viable. What did you expect, a real fetus?" After all, isn't that
the argument of the pro-choice groups? It isn't a living human, until
birth?
Justice Blackmun also made the statement that;
"Our law should not be that rigid."
(Section IV, Roe v. Wade)
This statement was made when he was addressing the problem of
pregnancy and an abortion trial being justiciable, yet evading review
because of the shortness of the human gestational cycle. Therefore an
injunctive relief order was declared, though not a declatory one. This
leaves open a whole new area for judicial review on other matters
brought before the Supreme Court of the United States. If our laws
should be flexible for the subject of abortion, why should it not
pertain to other court matters?
A Point For Thought...
Many historians, legal scholars, and constitutional
lawyers having a liberal bent would argue today that the constitution is
a "living document", that as modern time and language changes,
those changes directly affect the wording of a two-hundred plus year old
document written with carefully chosen words and much debate on the
precise language of said document. Would these same people of great
intellect apply such liberal leaning toward the wording and decisiveness
of Roe v. Wade? Because it was stated in Roe v. Wade
that...............
"Our Law Should Not Be That Rigid."
A truly bold statement. One put forth by
Justice Harry Blackmun on the issue of pregnancy and abortion and their
acceptance into the halls of justice of the United States Supreme Court
as a matter of being justiciable, yet "evading review" because
of it's shortness in time.
But what or who sets rigidity in our laws? Is it the
President, the Congress, the Courts, the mood of the Country, how we
feel from day to day as a Nation? I would think not. "Our law
should not be that rigid." Where should our laws remain rigid,
and where should they become flexible? That is almost an oxymoron,
because laws are passed to mean exactly what they say, otherwise why
write them? With the aspect and theories of a human court influencing
their opinion and interpretation, and reading into the law what they
want it to say, instead of reading from the wording of the law what the
law is actually saying, our laws become fluid, and our governance
unstable. If the letter of the law is not adhered to, virtually
everything, every right is laid on the table and open for
re-interpretation. Take the First and Second Amendments, which one
provides for flexibility, which one remains, and becomes even more rigid
as time goes by?
This brings up another subject that reared it's head in argument in Roe
v. Wade, that is the one of what constitutes a
"person" by definition of the Constitution of these United
States. This argument has legitimate concerns, but for those who would
view the First Amendment as an all inclusive article to include and
protect anything and everything from actual speech to certain physical
actions that require no speech or freedom of the press at all is almost
clearly a blatantly defined approach to further one's own legislative
agenda to liberalize society without societal input.
"The appellee and certain amici argue that the
fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the
Fourteenth Amendment. ..they outline at length and in
detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this
suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's
case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be
guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment. The
appellant concluded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee
conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a
fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth
Amendment."
(Section IX, Roe v. Wade)
The Court is pointing out here that if "personhood" of the
unborn is ever established, the abortion case would fall apart because
the unborn would be protected by the Constitution. They go on to say
that "no court case could be cited that held anyone liable for the
death of a fetus or that gave the fetus the same rights as a
"live" person as granted by the Fourteenth Amendment."
But there are cases that have been held since then that has held
criminals liable for the death of a fetus, because of the
"possibility" of life. Even when that possibility was only a
one or two percent chance in one hundred. Almost 25
states have laws permitting some kind of prosecution for the death of
the unborn.
"The Constitution does not define
"person" in so many words."
(Section IX, Roe v. Wade)
As stated before, the First Amendment uses the term speech very
broadly, to include everything from actual speech to certain physical
actions that require no speech or freedom of the press, to
anti-Christian art that is displayed in government funded museums. This
is all protected under the guise of "freedom of speech".
Further excerpts:
"But in nearly all these instances, the use
of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None
indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible
pre-natal application."
"...it is reasonable and appropriate for a
State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that
of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes
significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and
any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly..."
(Section IX, Roe v. Wade)
This matter that the Court addressed here is that after a certain
point the privacy issue established by the founding of this case on the
Fourteenth Amendment at some point loses it's relevance as pertaining
only to the woman, because the longer the pregnancy is allowed to
progress, the more relevant the State's rights become in protecting
potential human life, specifically after the point of viability set by
this Court.
"...conception is a "process" over
time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as
menstrual extraction, the "morning-after" pill, implantation
of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs."
(Section IX, Roe v. Wade)
Point For Thought...
So, we are so medically advanced now that we rely on
medical transactions to achieve pregnancies as well as to terminate
them? Would the scientific foundations across North America agree then
with the argument that an egg laid by the Bald Eagle is not protected by
the Endangered Species Act, because it by definition is not an actual
Eagle, could we therefore go back to harvesting Eagle eggs, or would the
proponents of the ESA revolt on our desecration of the
"potential" Eagle population. After all, not every Eagle egg
becomes an eaglet.
I think the next subject tells the story of a selfish humanity that
cares more for their own agenda in societal advancement than it does for
the rights of the unborn, even though Roe v. Wade upheld
such ideology for the unborn...........
Partial-Birth Abortion Procedures: A Legality That
Affords Doctor's The Right To Perform A Barbarous Act of Legalized
Murder?
Just exactly what is a "partial-birth abortion?"
Here again we have groups like NOW falling back to the original argument
argued before the United States Supreme Court at the outset of Roe
v. Wade, which was, "That the woman's right is absolute and
that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in
whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses."
I open this subject with this line because there was a lot of
argument placed in and around this ideology of liberalizing the abortion
argument to the point of "abortion on demand". And even today
many pro-abortion activists argue that if any anti-abortion legislation
is passed in Congress, it is simply a step towards reversing Roe
v. Wade. But let's carefully examine the practice of
"partial-birth abortion," the procedures used to perform the
operation of this type of abortion, of which abortion rights groups have
accused anti-abortion groups of falsely naming to make it sound as
though it were somehow mis-construed as a torturous act, and the time
frame during pregnancy it is most usually performed. From there you can
use your own judgment to see if it is an act of barbarianism, or an act
of a duty bound
physician just doing his/her job to fulfill the wishes of a wanting
sect of the American Public who are entitled to their rights as dictated
by law.
In the United States Supreme Court Case of Stenberg v. Carhart a
partial-birth abortion is described as "an abortion procedure in
which the person performing the abortion partially delivers vaginally a
living unborn child before killing the unborn child and completing the
delivery."
There are two types of so-called partial-birth abortion procedures
widely used today. They are known as "D&E", and
"D&X", both similar in practice, but differentiated by
technicalities in the medical field.
Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) abortions are used after the first
trimester of pregnancy and are used in unison with some of the same
procedures and instruments, as are used in the first trimester, but
naturally as time progresses, so does the fetus, and thus it's size, so
between thirteen and fifteen weeks of gestation some alternative
procedures must be administered to the patient.
--
thirteen to fifteen weeks
of fetal development--
·
HEAD is now erect
·
EYES face forward
·
EARS very close to where they are supposed
to be
·
lower LIMBS well developed
·
TOENAILS show signs of early development
These include induced cervical dilation, intravenous fluids, an
analgesic or
sedative, and the use of an anesthetic. Dilating agents, if used, are
removed and the attending physician proceeds with the abortion. The
abortion is performed through the cervix in utero and removal of fetal
and placental "tissue" begins. Because fetal
"tissue" is friable and easily broken, the fetus "may not
be removed intact."
After fifteen weeks the fetus is of course larger at this stage in
development, particularly the head, bones have became more rigid,
therefore dismemberment or other destructive procedures are far more
likely to be used to remove fetal and placental tissue.
After twenty weeks of pregnancy some doctors use intrafetal potassium
chloride or digoxin to induce fetal death, essentially the use of either
of the aforementioned drugs would likely cause the fetus to have a heart
attack and die while still in the mother's womb.(F8) Dilation and
Evacuation abortions do have variations in overall operative strategy,
however, they do share some common points overall. These include
dilation of the cervix, removal of some fetal tissue using nonvacuum
instruments, and after the fifteenth week, because of the
size of the unborn fetus, the need for instrumental dismemberment of
the fetus and/or the collapse of fetal parts (usually the head) to
permit removal of the fetus from the uterus.
When an instrument assisted D&E abortion takes place, the doctor
physically has to dismember the fetus by pulling a portion of the fetus
through the cervix and into the birth canal. The following is testimony
from the United States Supreme Court Case of Stenberg v. Carhart(F9).
The person testifying is Dr. Carhart, he is being questioned about the
procedures of D&E and D&X abortions:
"Dr. Carhart: … ‘The dismemberment occurs between the
traction of … my instrument and the counter-traction of the internal
os of the cervix … .
"Counsel: ‘So the dismemberment occurs after you pulled a part
of the fetus through the cervix, is that correct?
"Dr. Carhart: ‘Exactly. Because you’re using-The cervix has
two strictures or two rings, the internal os and the external os …
that’s what’s actually doing the dismembering… .
"Counsel: ‘When we talked before or talked before about a
D&E, that is not-where there is not intention to do it intact, do
you, in that situation, dismember the fetus in utero first, then remove
portions?
"Dr. Carhart: ‘I don’t think so. … I don’t know of any
way that one could go in and intentionally dismember the fetus in the
uterus. … It takes something that restricts the motion of the fetus
against what you’re doing before you’re going to get dismemberment.’
"
During the trial Dr. Carhart and Dr. Stubblefield described a
variation of the D&E abortion procedure, which was referred to as
"intact D&E." It begins like most other D&E abortions,
but instead of dismemberment, it involves removing the fetus from the
uterus through the cervix "intact," in one pass, rather than
in several passes. It is used after sixteen weeks at the earliest, as
vacuum aspiration becomes ineffective and the fetal skull becomes too
large to pass through the cervix. This abortion procedure proceeds in
one of two ways, depending on the presentation of the fetus. If the
fetus presents itself head first, known as a vertex presentation, the
doctor collapses the skull; if the fetus presents feet first, known as a
breech position, the doctor pulls the fetal body through the cervix,
collapses the skull, and then extracts the fetus, this is commonly known
as D&X, or dilation and extraction abortion Another description of
D&X abortion was described by
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and describes
the D&X procedure in a manner corresponding to a breech-conversion
intact D&E, including the following steps:
-1. deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of
days;
-2. instrumental conversion of the fetus to a footling breech;
-3. breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and
-4. partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of a living fetus
to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus. Despite
the technical differences we have just described, intact D&E and
D&X are sufficiently similar for us to use the terms
interchangeably.
The decision was laid at the doorsteps of the United States Supreme
Court to come up with a satisfactory answer to the question of what was
a "viable life." The direct wording of "viable life"
means having (viable) the capability of surviving outside the mother's
womb without artificial support and (life) the quality that
distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body. So in
essence we have the meaning of viable life to be that of "a life
capable of surviving outside the mother's womb distinguishable from a
dead body." Science defines death as the "cessation of brain
waves."(F10) Given the absolutes of the descriptions of both a
viable life and of death, would it not stand to reason that the medical
field is meddling awful close to "playing God" when it comes
to the decision of whether an unborn "fetus" is deemed not
"viable" before given that chance at viability according to
the progress and knowledge of our medical doctors and nurses and the
tools at their disposal. Still yet this "fetus" is considered
not "a live person," even though brain waves are recordable,
there is a measurable heartbeat, and a pulse, all which are separate and
apart from that of the mother.
The United States Supreme Court even went a step further in
describing what was considered "viable" at the time Roe
v. Wade was handed down. The statement was made clear that
either "natural or ARTIFICIAL means" was appropriate
when being administered to sustain the life of a "viable"
fetus. Roe set viability at six months, and gave doctors the opportunity
to "proscribe" abortion after fetal viability. Where the
argument is at today hinges upon the issue for the "rights" of
the woman. The word "health" has taken on a whole new meaning
since 1973, it now tends to include how someone might feel from one day
to the next, it may be said that their being upset over not being able
to pursue a job opportunity because of an unplanned pregnancy would
directly affect one's "health". In fact the word health has
risen to the point of circumventing the meaning of viable life, even
when read from Roe v. Wade in the post era of abortion
rights and twenty-eight years of liberalizing the aforementioned court
case ruling. If an abortion does not destroy viable life, how then can
the potential for implants be accessible from an aborted fetus?(F11) How
can the advancing scientific introduction into stem-cell research bring
forth new hopes for old ills in our society and our hospitals, without
noticing that there was the formula for the potential of
"viability"?(F12)
And how can we call ourselves human, and denounce Hitler's treatment
of the Jews in World War II, or vow to stop the genocide in Kosovo,
while here within our own shores, a very genocide is occurring as we
fight for the rights of animals not to be used in the testing of certain
products we as humans use everyday, because we see it as inhumane. We
live in trees for the right of an old-growth forest not to be cut down,
we strive for the last wilderness to remain untouched by human
interaction, thus leaving the land and streams hospitable for the
species of bears that are native to Alaska. All this and more, as an act
of genocide is waged against our unborn. Do we put more fight toward
saving the trees, bears, or salmon that inhabit our woodlands and
streams than we do into saving potential human life? Have we become such
a self-centered egotistical people that we can justify that somehow we
are owed, through our "liberties", and a contorted look
through our Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment of our
Constitution our own "pursuit of happiness", for the right
price through the guise of a medical license?
Tim Parsons, Sr.
4117 Gattin Rd.
Benton, AR. 72015
Sincerely, Tim L. Parsons, Sr.
FOOTNOTE(2): "We note that those federal and state courts that
have recently considered abortion law challenges have reached the same
conclusion. A majority, in addition to the District Court in the present
case, have held state laws unconstitutional, at least in part, because
of vagueness or because of overbreadth and abridgment of rights."
(although the rights in question of the day of Roe v. Wade was
those of the woman to abort her child, could that argument be made today
against federal law, because some thirty or more states have in effect
laws that give legal protection to the unborn in acts of aggression
against the pregnant mother?) "and the Court further stated that
the right to an abortion is not absolute and is subject to some
limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection
of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant."
FOOTNOTE(3): "...upon the interim point at which the fetus
becomes "viable," that is,
potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with
artificial
aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but
may
FOOTNOTE(4): "Viability is usually placed at about seven months
(28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." (Roe v.
Wade, 1973)
FOOTNOTE(6): parturition-the action or process of giving birth to
offspring
|<--------------------(embryonic stage of human
life)------------------------>|
FOOTNOTE(8): Potassium chloride-Chemical name(KCI) crystalline powder
used as an electrolyte replenisher
FOOTNOTE(10): If a patient's entire brain is nonfunctioning, so that
breathing and heartbeat are maintained only by artificial life-supports,
that patient meets the whole-brain standard of death. (Report from the
Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy)
FOOTNOTE(11): Transplantation of fetal germ cells differs in method
and result from existing fertility treatments. Unlike in IVF, conception
does not take place in vitro, but in vivo. The fetal ovary, once
transplanted into the recipient, grows rapidly to maturity and begins
producing ova, entirely replacing the missing or non- functional ovary.
Ovulation and conception then take place naturally; in the Fallopian
tube rather than in the laboratory.
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/09_2/Meeker/html/text.html
FOOTNOTE(12): Recent scientific advances in human stem cell research
have brought into fresh focus the dignity and status of the human
embryo. These advances have prompted a decision by the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to fund stem cell research, which is dependent upon the
destruction of human embryos. Now that human embryonic stem cells can be
isolated and multiplied in the laboratory, some scientists believe that
treatments for a variety of diseases-such as diabetes, heart disease,
Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s-may be within reach.