NOTE: The following was written for a college level Government class where
we had to research the D/X abortion process, explain the pro and con cases
for banning the procedure, and then explain what side we came down on and
why. I note, with some humility, that I got a perfect score upon this paper
and my professor said that he felt it would be a dark day for fanatical anti-feminist
preachers everywhere should I ever have to take them on in a debate.

Since Republicans got a majority of seats in the House of Representatives
and the Senate in 1995, they have been trying to pass a bill that would ban
partial birth abortion within the United States. A bill which would have
done this, HR1833 was passed by the House and Senate only to be vetoed by
President Clinton on May 5, 1996. Later attempts to override the veto were
defeated, the most recent being on September 18, 1998 failing to achieve a
2/3’s majority by 3 votes.

“Partial Birth Abortion” as it has become known is a legal term used to
refer to a dilation & extraction or intact dilation & evacuation. This is an
abortion process used mostly in second or third trimester abortions, where
the fetus is almost or fully formed. What this means is that the vagina of
the mother is stretched (dilation) and the fetus is partially delivered. The
doctor turns the unborn child into the "breech" position (feet first) and
pulls the child from the mother until all but the head is delivered. He or
she then forces scissors into the base of the skull and inserts a catheter
to suction out the child's brain. This procedure, while more complicated and
messy than some, is less allegedly less harmful to the mother than other
such abortion techniques, such as saline or prostaglandin induced abortion,
which chemically poisons the fetus.

Like most arguments over abortion in general, the debate over partial birth
abortion has sparked more than a fair amount of discussion, splitting people
into the groups of pro-life and pro-choice. The pro-life organizations have
spoken out against partial birth abortion in specific and abortion in
general based upon Religious, Moral and Medical Arguments.

First, the Religious argument against abortion. Many people who are
anti-abortion rely upon this argument above all others, if they use any
other arguments. Quite often they will quote passages from the Bible to back
up their claims that abortion goes against God’s laws. This is not limited
to individual activists or religious leaders. Whole groups, such as Texans
United for Life, devote substantial portions of their webpages towards
explaining “what God says about abortion”. One of the more quoted passages
is Psalm 139:13-16, which allegedly deals with when God says life begins.

“For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb. I will
praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are your
works, and that my soul knows very well.”

The second argument is that of Morality. Many pro-lifers argue that,
religious issues are set aside, there are still the issues of right and
wrong in regard to abortion. They say that even if abortion is not a sin, it
is still an act of needless killing and should be treated as murder. Those
who plead the moral case usually point to alternatives to abortion such as
adoption or encourage abstinence which would prevent the need for the
abortion in the first place.

The third argument against partial-birth abortion is the Medical One. Many
doctors now claim there is evidence that partial birth abortion, aside from
being a messy and disgusting process, may well be harmful to the mother’s life.

One of these doctor’s groups, PHACT, say on their website that PBA is
dangerous because it involves “a forcible dilation of the cervix to 5cm over
48 hours by laminaria, risking infection and future cervical incompetence”
and that doctors must perform this procedure “partially blind and with sharp
instrumentation (which is put) within the uterus to evacuate the baby's
brain, again with the possibility of lacerating the uterus with the scissors
or the sharp shards of bone from the baby's skull. These last three
procedures all risk peritonitis, or massive hemorrhage, necessitating
immediate hysterectomy -- both obvious threats to the fertility and life of
the woman.”

The opposing arguments are just as strong where the focus is upon the values
of Freedom, Morality and Medical Arguments.

First, let us discuss the idea of Freedom. As it was decided in the case of
Roe vs. Wade, a woman's right to an abortion is protected under the 14th
Amendment; specifically, the right to privacy in regard to one's own body.
The value of freedom is very important to those who are pro-choice. Indeed,
the right of a woman to control her own body is the very core focus of the
pro-choice movement.

Secondly, there is Morality. Many in the pro-choice camp concede the point
that abortion is a terrible thing and that all that is possible should be
done to prevent it. However, there are many cases, such as rape and incest,
where many people believe a woman should not have to be forced to have the
child. And then there are things such as birth complications. If not for
abortion, how many women are there who might die in child birth if doctors
are not allowed to abort the fetus and save her life? It is the position of
these people that preventing the anguish a woman might suffer from being
forced to have a child she doesn’t want and the loss of life through
complications outweighs the loss of life. Moralists also point out that
there is no clear definition of when life begins. According to the Ontario
Consultants on Religious Tolerance webpage, most people in the pro-life camp
say it begins at conception. Pro-choice say it begins “when the baby can
live outside the womb, once it loses its’ gills starts to look human-shaped,
once it shows signs of brainwave activity (7 months or so) or after it has
taken its first breath.”

Finally, there is the Medical Argument. One argument for the Dilation and
Extraction (D&X) is that it is, despite what many pro-life groups say, a
life saving procedure that is relatively harmless to the mother.

According to an article on the Planned Parenthood of Houston/Southeast Texas
Website, an Ohio federal court ruled that "the D&X (partial-birth) procedure
appears to have the potential of being a safer procedure than all other
abortion procedures" in the later part of the second trimester.

A Nebraska Federal Court made a similar judgment D&X is the safest abortion
method in the later part of the second-trimester, and banning it subjects
women "to an appreciably greater risk of injury or death than would be the
case if these women could" obtain the banned procedure..”

Further support for the safety of the “partial-birth abortion” can be found
on the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice webpage. Besides stating
that the procedure is safe, it notes that for all the attention it has been
given, the D&X is VERY RARELY USED.

“This procedure is actually one of the least-used forms of late-term
abortion because it's needed only in certain situations, usually involving a
severely deformed fetus (where) Other procedures, such as induced labor or
vaginal delivery, would present higher risk to the woman's life, health or
future childbearing. In these cases, Intact D&E may be safer than other
procedures because it reduces blood loss and prevents tearing the woman's
cervix and uterus, leaving her able to get pregnant and give birth later.”

The RCRC website also gives specific statistics on how many D&X’s are
performed in a year, saying that about one percent of all abortions take
place after 20 weeks. D&X’s are usually only performed during labor and it
is estimated that there are only 600 third-trimester abortions a year
nationwide, this making up a minuscule fraction of a percent of the total
number of abortions done.

Having looked at both sides and read the arguments, I find myself on the
side I started on, my opinions unchanged but with a better understanding of
those who disagree with me.

I am pro-choice, having found no convincing argument to be otherwise. I will
argue this position based on the three values of the pro-life side I mentioned earlier.

Let us discuss the religious argument first. I would not call myself
religious by nature and would not identify myself as a member of any
organized religion, even though I do believe there is a God. Nevertheless, I
have read the Bible and have found a good deal of wisdom in what is written
in it. But as a former debater I have very little respect for anyone who
limits themselves to one form of argument and even less respect for Bible
Thumpers in particular. While the former merely limit they ways in which
they can express themselves, the latter actively assume that I am wrong for
no reason other than I speak against them. It’s odd, but I have noticed that
those who quote the Bible very rarely read the Bible itself. More often that
no they are merely repeating a portion of what they heard the local pastor
say or what Pat Robertson or the like said on TV. I looked up the aforementioned
passage from the Texans United for Life page, which I shall repeat...

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are
thy works: and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid
from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest
parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect;
and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were
fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."

These verses are used to prove that human life begins at conception, but we
see no mention of the soul. We read that a blueprint, of sorts, is used by
God to form our bodies. Nowhere here does this describe anything but the
making of the human form. Nowhere here does it describe how we are imbued
with a human soul. There are however passages which DO describe this. I
quote from Genesis 2:7...

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

This passage suggests that first a body is made, then the body breathes and
then it receives a soul. This passage then could be used to support the
pro-choice argument that life begins after the baby’s first breath upon delivery.

Since the Bible has been shown to be a tool usable by both the pro-choice
and pro-life sides, I think we can conclude that the Religious argument
against abortion is very weakly founded.

In the case of Morality, I do agree with the pro-life position somewhat, as
I believe most pro-choice people do. While I do not personally believe the
fetus to be a living being with a soul, I do believe that abortion does end
the potential for a being to come into existence. As such, abortion should
be discouraged at every opportunity simply because there are much better
alternatives. For example, abstinence will keep a woman from getting
pregnant in the first place. Birth control, while not being 100% effective,
is also better than nothing. And even if a condom or a pill should fail,
there is always adoption. That said, I must explain why I come down
pro-choice on the Morality argument.

It is true that man abortions might be prevented through abstinence, the use
of birth control or adoption. But what about the many cases where the
pregnancy could not have been prevented? What if a woman is raped and
impregnated? Does society have a right to tell her she has to have the
child? Can we really ask a woman to raise a child, brought into existence
because of circumstances that she could not control, especially if she might
become traumatized by being reminded of the rape ever time she sees her
child? Or what if the rapist is a family member? Should any woman be forced
by the state to have a child that could be inbred? For that matter, what if
there are complications in birth and an abortion is the only way possible to
save the mother's life? Will the female mortality rate rise because of all
these mothers, who might have been saved had it not been for the Religious
Right's distaste of a certain medical procedure? And what if the woman
cannot afford to support a child? Would we have this child grow up in
squalid conditions, perhaps becoming beaten and abused by a mother who never
wanted it? Or maybe the child will be, in an incident I hear repeated on the
news all too frequently, abandoned in a trash dumpster? That is why I am
pro-choice. For while I may agree that abortion should be prevented at any
cost, I would argue that it is more moral to allow one potential life to end
than for two potential lives to be ruined.

Finally, there is the Medical Argument. Based upon everything I have read on
the Internet, I must again say that I am pro-choice upon the medical point.
Yes, the description of the procedures for a D&X are gruesome. But so are
many medical procedures once you hear them described or see them performed.
The procedure is safe and done only in emergency situations. Even then it is
used sparingly, only dozens of times a year according to my aforementioned
source. It seems somewhat foolish to me to waste so much time over a
procedure that is used in less that 1% of the total amount of abortion cases.

Also, the pro-choice sites I saw were overall better organized than the
pro-life sites. By this, I mean that they all had similar figures and
statistics as opposed to some of the pro-life sites I saw which were like
unto snowflakes: no two of them were alike. To me, a well organized argument
is a good indicator of how valid it is, since the people who most often
think through their beliefs also take time to organize their thoughts.

And so it is that I must conclude that because of the Bible being an
ineffective tool to plead the case of God being against abortion, that the
stopping of one life is a lesser sin than the ruination of two and that
there is no medical reason to doubt the safety of the D&X procedure that the
pro-choice argument is the correct one.