You are wrong on virtually every count.
Did you bother to read my response?
The information I provided wasn't invented in my head; rather, it is backed up by the American Medical Association, World Medical Association, as thousands of experienced gynecologists, a few of whom I know personally. In other words, my statements are supported by
credible, experienced medical professionals and institutions. Respectfully, sir, you have
nothing on them!
I did not say "Hydrocephalus" which can be treated with shunts (though not always successfully). I said "Acute Hydrocephalus" and it is not treatable and it's mortality rate is 100% with mother's who deliver said child with ACUTE Hydrocephalus suffering mortality/morbidity rates of nearly 100%. In short a fetus with ACUTE Hydrocephalus is a non-viable fetus. Typical morphology are cranial swelling to around 50 c.m. about 2.5 to 3 times normal. The internal pressures are enormous and ussually liquify the fetuses brain.
My mistake. Let's address this, and examine whether partial-birth abortion is the only/safest procedure to alleviate that particular situation.
So the long and the short of it is Intact D&X is almost always performed on nonviable fetus's that are either all ready dead are cannot nor will not survive outside the womb and also present a great risk of either killing our causing serious injury to the mother if delivered normally (i.e. vaginally).
Unfortunately, that is incorrect.
In the United Kingdom, the overwhelming majority of partial-birth abortions (~90%) are purely elective. While *technically* it is permissible only in cases of "medical necessity," there is a clause which also permits it when "risk of grave physical and
mental injury to the woman" can be demonstrated. In other words, a woman can simply argue that carrying the infant to term will inflict psychological harm, and the procedure will be carried out by an NHS physician without any questions asked.
In the United States, most physicians who have performed partial-birth abortions will admit that in nearly all cases the procedure is elective. Dr. Martin Haskell is a prime example; he performed in excess of 1000 partial-birth abortions, 80% of which were "purely elective" according to his own words. (Haskell wrote a paper on the subject on behalf of the National Abortion Federation in the early 90s. If you are interested in reading it, I believe it is available online). In an interview with Fr. Frank Pavone (a Catholic pro-life activist), Haskell further admitted that there is fact
no medical justification for the procedure.
This refutes your claim that
"Intact D&X is used almost exclusively in the case of a fetus with acute hydrocephalus." In fact,
acute hydrocephalus is an extremely rare condition. Do the math if you wish. I assure you the number of partial-birth abortions performed (world-wide) greatly exceeds untreatable cases of fetal hydrocephalus.
No one states that Intact D&X is with out risk.
You strongly implied that it is. But, that is because you are ignorant on the subject, as I have thoroughly demonstrated.
Why is it so difficult for you to simply admit that you were wrong?
Clearly we are two mature adults. So far, I've enjoyed our discussion as it has been kept mostly respectful (minus your usual ad-hominem attacks). But if you cannot accept reality for what it is, I see no point in continuing. Your opinion is at odds with the American Medical Association, the World Medical Association, respected and accomplished physicians, Republican and Democratic lawmakers, 70% of the American public, and the Supreme Court of the United States of America. And yet, somehow, it is
I who resides on the political fringe? Bullshit!
Those who advocate partial-birth abortion are either terribly misinformed, sadistic, or they have financial interest in the procedure (abortion is big business).
However, there are many advantages to Intact D&X as the next most viable procedure is a histerotomy which is way more invasive with far higher risk and a far higher mortality/morbidity rate then Intact D&X
Again, you are incorrect!
While technically more "invasive" than partial-birth abortion, a hysterotomy presents fewer risks to the woman. In fact, the risks associated with a hysterotomy are, to quote the New York State Department of Health, "among the lowest of any major operation." Hell, even in the
January, 1909 edition of the American Journal of Obstetrics, the hysterotomy is noted as being a
"safe, quick, and simple operation." (See pages 964-965)
Once removed, the non-viable infant is set aside and permitted to live out its life, no matter how short or long a duration that may be. The point being, it is not for us to decide!
By comparison, the risks of partial-birth abortion include: infection, hemorrhaging (i.e. if the placenta is abrupted), perforation of the uterus, among additional risks. You must understand that the physician performing the procedure cannot "see" what he is doing when he forces the scissors into the fetus' skull. If he misses/slips, severe bleeding, shock, and possibly death may result. According to the 8/26/98 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association,
partial-birth abortion "should not be performed because it is needlessly risky, inhumane, and ethically unacceptable. This procedure is closer to infanticide than it is to abortion."
Partial-birth abortion is a complicated, risky procedure. Hysterotomies are not complicated and present few risks, and can be performed quickly if need be, whereas partial-birth abortion procedures require 3 days to complete. Sorry, but it's a no-brainer.
In conclusion, even if partial-birth abortion were medically justifiable under certain conditions, it would still be an unsafe, inhumane and ultimately unacceptable procedure. We've abolished hanging, firing squads and gas chambers as methods of execution for criminals because these methods have been deemed inhumane. Even if partial-birth abortion were necessary in some cases, which it is not, surely we could extend the same level of compassion we show to serial killers and rapists to pre-born human beings who have committed no wrong whatsoever.
and BTW my source is a OB-GYN Professor at OSU School of Medicine.
...who is apparently so reputable that you neglect to mention his or her name.
This is so laughable that it warrants no further response.
