This particular procedure has been criminalized due to legislators' cowardice in the face of right-wing activists. The D&X procedure is sometimes safer for women than hysterotomy, but why should legislators care about that? http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm 3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are: The fetus is dead. The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger. The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her. The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus. In addition, some physicians violate their state medical association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed. There appears to be no reliable data available on how many D&X procedures are performed for each of the above reasons. The physician is faced with two main alternatives at this late point in pregnancy: a hysterotomy, which is similar to a Cesarean section, or a D&X procedure
Unfair that a woman should have to have a hysterectomy, meaning no more children, instead of a PBA which means she can still have another child.
It's hysterotomy, not hysterectomy. Hysterotomy is a form of late-term abortion so from the raw life and death point of view, is no different to partial birth abortion. In the kind of circumstances described in the post above, the choice between the two procedures should be entirely medical, based on the specific circumstances unless, of course, political ignorance (or worse, arrogance) sees one banned yet the other not.
Exactly, doctors should be able to choose which method is best for the PATIENT, not confined by the squeamishness of the general public, who are usually ill-informed on the topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterotomy_abortion Hysterotomy abortion is a form of abortion in which the uterus is opened through an abdominal incision and the fetus is removed, similar to a caesarean section, but requiring a smaller incision.[1] As major abdominal surgery, hysterotomy is performed under general anaesthesia, and is only used in rare situations where less invasive procedures have failed or are medically inadvisable (such as in the case of placenta accreta).[2] It is used between the 12th and 24th week of pregnancy.[2] This method has the greatest risk of complications out of all the abortion procedures.[2] Health officials in the United States warned practitioners against performing hysterotomy abortion in an outpatient setting after it led to the deaths of two women in New York during 1971.[3][4] The rate of mortality for abortion by hysterotomy and hysterectomy reported in the United States between 1972 to 1981 was 60 per 100,000, or 0.06%.[5]
Whoops, I read it wrong! Whalers response is interesting. Preventing a woman from becoming pregnant again is better than allowing her to have an abortion? Hmm...
Let me see if I understand you correctly before I comment. Would you prefer a woman have a hysterectomy, which PREVENTS her from EVER having another child, RATHER than allow her to have a late term abortion?
Denying someone the right to become a parent just because you don't want her to have an abortion (which may be medically necessary) is sickening.
I thought you were OK with abortions which are necessary to save life or health (including reproductive system health) of the mother.
Wanting premeditated homicide to be used to pick and choose which of your children get to live is FARRRRR SICKER!!!!
You aren't making any sense. Women have those procedures (hysterectomy) every day and few ever die. It also often improved their overall health!
This is ridiculous. Are you actually claiming that hysterectomy improves womens health, not damages it? Well, then lets do hysterectomies to all women right at birth! The abortion to save the reproductive system of the mother is by definition abortion to save health of the mother by terminating pregnancy which would irreversibly harm her. Do you oppose abortions to save health of the mother, or prevent irreversible harm to the mother?
Yes! Are you claiming doctors do it to intentionally damage women? There is no such thing as an abortion to save the mother's reproductive system.
Are you actually claiming that hysterectomy improves womens health compared to abortion (and no need for hysterectomy), when we have to choose between the two? Doesnt matter if there is or not now (but I am sure such situations can arise). You claimed that if there was such a dilemma, you would prefer irreversibly damaging the womans health (reproductive system) instead of abortion. You are against abortions to save health of the mother.
Do you really think I didn't notice you dodge my question? I don't really care. A killing versus some possible maybe damage blah blah blah. There is no question, err on the side of NOT killing someone.
Thats because the question was offtopic. The issue is choosing between hysterectomy and no damage to women health (with abortion), not hysterectomy and worse damage to her health anyway (there would be no dilemma in such case. In such case I would of course agree that hysterectomy is not needed). The more I debate with you the more I think you seem to be incapable of rational debate. So are you against abortions in case of saving the womans health (such as reproductive health)? Admit it, so everyone knows you are a mysogynist anti-abortion extremist.
You should take some logic classes. When the options are between a medical procedure that is not lethal and one that is 100% lethal, I think the rational choice is the one that doesn't kill somebody. You already admitted that there is no such reason for abortion, so how could I have an opinion on something that does not exist?
This little childish hissy fit remark lets me know that I have beaten you down and you realize you cannot refute my assertions. I LOVE IT!
Never heard of hypotheticals? Anyway, I dont need you to repeat your opinion. You have already stated that in such case you would prefer irreversibly damaging womans health instead of abortion. So by this logic, unless the alternative would be 100% lethal to the woman, abortion should not be allowed. Thanks for confirming that you are against abortions even in case when its needed to save the health of the woman. I think this does not need further commentary. Even overwhelming majority of pro-lifers disagree with this kind of extremism.