Abortion Questions

Many abortion advocates has suggested that abortion bans subject medical personnel to unreasonable threats of legal action for performing some medical procedures that are deemed to be abortions. This, in turn, has the potential of harming a woman’s health by unreasonable delay in performing life-saving interventions. One example often cited is D and C, also known as: dilation and curettage.

There are times when a successful birth is not followed by the successful expulsion of the afterbirth. This retained placenta, according to Dr. Google, happens in about 3% of vaginal births. The treatment for this can include our friend, D and C. Is that a post-delivery abortion, and thus subject to abortion bans? (If such a thing could actually be or could be construed in that manner.)

To answer this question we go back to my college debate and subsequent coaching of high school debaters. No academic debate can proceed without the definition of terms. If the meaning of the terms used are not agreed upon, the debaters do not know what they are talking about. Or what their opponents are talking about. Often a debate hinges upon the definition of the terms involved.

Here we define “abortion” as a procedure that is performed with the intent of producing a dead baby. A “medical procedure,” such as D and C in the instance in question, is administered with the primary intent of preserving the life of the mother, and secondarily, producing a live birth if at all possible. Any conflict in those two conclusions must be resolved according to the priorities: live mother first, then live birth.

Concerning D and C, since it is used in some abortion procedures, an objection has been raised that any D and C would be considered an abortion, in violation of the law. This is irrespective of the intent of the procedure. Obviously, this argument is flawed and blatantly false because it does not meet the definition of terms. If it is used in the preservation of the mother’s life, it does not qualify as a violation of the law.

Going further, some abortions are effected by the administration of medication. So would the administration of any medication to a pregnant woman be considered, abortion” No reasonable, logical person would interpret it that way. Anesthesia can be administered during an abortion, so would sedating a pregnant mother, even in the process of delivery, be prosecuted as an violation of the abortion ban? We are getting pretty ridiculous here. In debate, we called that reductio ad absurdum, reducing to absurdity. 

Incidentally, should an over zealous prosecutor take more than one such incident to trial and have  it summarily dismissed, he or she would most likely be subject to some legal reprimand, censure, and even sanctions. 

What about other instances? If a baby is stillborn and some placental fragments remain within the mother’s uterus, would that removal be prosecution worthy? Asked and answered. How about a little more obscure example. A baby is still born, dead, but not delivered. Would the surgical removal of the dead baby be abortion? We answer that by asking a simple question: Did a medical intervention deliberately result in the death of the infant? If the answer is no, then the answer is, “No.”

The final and most difficult situation is when a living baby utero is threatening the life of the mother, for some reason.  And here we defer to the experts. (https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Feb/20/what-about-woman-whose-life-threatened-pregnancy-o/)

And I quote: While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother. He said the use of this argument to justify abortion in general was a “smoke screen.”

Further: Due to significant medical advances, the danger of pregnancy to the mother has declined considerably since 1967. Yet even at that time Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood acknowledged, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.” Dr. Landrum Shettles says that less than 1 percent of all abortions are performed to save the mother’s life. End quote.

You can read the entire explanation of the options at the above referenced location. So in conclusion, it seems that the abortion advocates have failed to consider the definition of terms, and literally, do not know what they are talking about.