How to deal with fetuses that survive abortion

[Charles Kozierok]

This issue was brought up in a P&N thread that degenerated into childish personal attacks literally within minutes of the original post. But it has an interesting underlying issue that I think is worth exploring.

The basis of the discussion is this article about comments made by a Planned Parenthood official to the Florida state legislature.

The phrase "post-birth abortion" used in that article is IMO both inaccurate and needlessly inflammatory. Once a baby is outside the womb, it is not longer a fetus and abortion is, by definition, impossible.

It's easy to damn this woman for saying that the decision should be left to the woman and the doctor rather than saying that all measures should be taken to preserve the baby's life. But I don't think we can do that without asking a few questions.

If the baby is developed enough that it not only could survive outside the womb but survive an abortion procedure, the obvious first question is why an abortion was performed in the first place. If there was nothing wrong with the fetus, then IMO the only valid justification for such a late-term abortion is if the mother's life was at risk and therefore the fetus had to be removed immediately. In that case, the mother would presumably want the baby's life preserved and there's no issue. (Of course one could ask why a caesaraen wasn't done instead, but perhaps there are medical reasons why that would be contraindicated.)

But what about situations where the fetus is being aborted because it has severe abnormalities that mean it won't be able to survive for more than a short period? If it survives the abortion, should we then throw all of the resources of the hospital at it so it lives for a few days plugged into machines, unconscious and miserable, with his or her parents even more miserable, only to then die, making the parents go through the trauma all over again -- and in the process, wasting tens of thousands of dollars of hospital resources that could be put to greater use?

We wouldn't treat a dog or a cat that way -- it would be considered "inhumane". But unfortunately, we do treat humans that way. Be they unviable fetuses or 98-year-olds with shattered hips or terminal cancer, we can't accept that sometimes death is inevitable and that the well-being of the patient doesn't necessarily consist of pulling out all the stops to prolong life for a few days.

The real question in my mind is if the Florida legislature is even thinking about these issues, or just working to pass yet another law that mindlessly preserves "life" even when it makes no sense.

 

[WelshBloke]

I think it has to be taken on a case by case basis.

It depends on the viability of the child. At some point medical intervention is just prolonging distress and never going to lead to a satisfactory outcome.

I think it should mainly be a clinical decision at this point.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think it has to be taken on a case by case basis.

It depends on the viability of the child. At some point medical intervention is just prolonging distress and never going to lead to a satisfactory outcome.

I think it should mainly be a clinical decision at this point.

The problem is that in places like the UK abortions are limited to 24 weeks. In the US there is no such uniform regulation. There can be restrictions based on viability but before 21 weeks is not an issue in that a fetus will not survive. After that? I don't know what to make of it. I can see more than one side and there isn't an action I'm entirely comfortable with.

 

[fskimospy]

I think this and euthanasia are closely intertwined. If a baby has been 'born' and is capable of surviving in the world then to kill it would be murder in my opinion.

That being said, if a baby suffers from abnormalities that are so severe that it cannot survive very long and will live in terrible suffering for both it and the parents, I see nothing wrong with euthanizing it. That is a kindness for everyone involved. I feel the same way about the terminally ill, if they want to end their suffering I see no reason to deny them that kindness.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think this and euthanasia are closely intertwined. If a baby has been 'born' and is capable of surviving in the world then to kill it would be murder in my opinion.

That being said, if a baby suffers from abnormalities that are so severe that it cannot survive very long and will live in terrible suffering for both it and the parents, I see nothing wrong with euthanizing it. That is a kindness for everyone involved. I feel the same way about the terminally ill, if they want to end their suffering I see no reason to deny them that kindness.

Looks like we're in agreement on this. My concern is that there needs to be some review by some one not involved in this patient/provider transaction to make sure there is proper review.

 

[Murloc]

Voluntary abortions have a legal limit of weeks that makes viability impossible.

The only situation that would make a late abortion necessary is if the mother's health is at risk (in which case she probably wants to keep the child) or medical evidence about the fetus (that makes it clear it's going to die soon after birth) comes up after the limit has already passed (in which case the objective was and still is euthanasia, regardless of the born/not-born status, euthanize it in the womb or something to avoid this dilemma).

The impression I get is that these legislators have nothing better to do.

 

[Retro Rob]

This is a living, breathing, human flipping being... they should do what they have to do to save this baby's life. It has every right to live just as much as you have, outside the womb.

That being said, if the child is already dying, then there is no need to prolong the death process. However, if a couple of selfish parents don't want to deal with an "abnormal" child and they "murder" it, they should be jailed. I applaud parents who deal with abnormal children -- life is precious and should be treated the same as folks would treat a darn pet (sometimes, they get better treatment than humans which is sickening to me).

Life is a gift to me... I don't think under any circumstances (outside of protecting oneself, family, loved one -- or even if the mother's life is in jeporady) should an intentional step be taken to end said life.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That being said, if the child is already dying, then there is no need to prolong the death process.

How do you define "already dying"?

That's not a flip question. It's really the core of the issue.

 

[Retro Rob]

How do you define "already dying"?

That's not a flip question. It's really the core of the issue.

This is a good question, and honestly, I really don't have an answer.

I just think that everything should be done to save the child's life and if all attempts fail, then there's nothing anyone can do about it - at least you tried.

Doctors could be, and are, wrong about what contitutes a dying person. I've even read some personal experiences about those with only "six-months to live" who have enjoyed years of life after being diagnosed.

I don't want to stray to far away from your question...

But, I would want them to do whatever it takes to save my "botched" abortion. Even if I orignally didn't want the child, terminating a life, on purpose, is out-right murder in my eyes...

 

[stormkroe]

I think P&N has over-stimulated my cynical gland. I didn't expect to find so much (of my definition of) reason and compassion here. Charles nailed it on the head in the 4th paragraph of the O.P., that is, if the baby can survive outside with medical help then this issue should only crop up in about 1% of abortions (depending on where you get your figures) because that's how many are supposedly to save the mother's life, and abortions of convenience don't legally stand up well at viability.
It's my opinion that most people agree we need to do everything we can to save a baby once it's outside the womb. I also think that an even larger number of people agree to try to save him/her if they have a great chance at survival.
My fear is that many people will withhold this opinion out of fear that it will weaken their logic behind the pro-choice argument, as it logically boils down to physical location of the baby deciding it's right to live at that point.

 

[randomrogue]

The doctor botches a medical procedure. He's liable. Of course it's not that simple.

If you get an abortion at such a late stage and it's not to save the life of the mother then it's probably because some tests came back with severe genetic abnormalities. I don't think that the mother, who chose to abort it, suddenly has to keep it because the doctor screwed up.

It's not pretty but I'm pro-choice. Not pro-choice but the doctor can screw up the procedure and take away your choice.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I think P&N has over-stimulated my cynical gland. I didn't expect to find so much (of my definition of) reason and compassion here.

It's funny because I was just coming here this morning to post something similar. This really is a complex issue that, if treated fairly, cannot be easily boiled down into the usual labels and accusations. The difference in the way it has been handled here and in P&N is striking illustration of the contrast in reasonableness and intelligence in the two groups -- as well as why there is so much more traffic there (nearly all of which is noise).

 

[Mxylplyx]

One of those situations where there really is no right answer. Abortion is a very unfortunate thing and it is very unfortunate that any woman would feel compelled to do such a thing, but that is the society we live in. I think many women, and doctors, shield themselves from the horrors of abortion by performing the actual procedure inutero, and then extracting the medical "waste" without ever getting a good look at what they have actually done. Having the baby outside the womb, where it is quite apparent that this is indeed a tiny person that is moving independently and struggling to breathe with it's tiny underdeveloped lungs, suddenly makes it ever so apparent that this is a bit more than simply a medical procedure on the mother. Even though I support abortion rights, I dont see how any doctor could look at a tiny baby laying on the table and snuff out whatever life it has left and dispose of it as medical waste, and then go home and live with himself. Hopefully we reach a point in society where abortions are never necessary, via freely available contraception and adoption/support services, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Retro Rob]

Even though I support abortion rights, I dont see how any doctor could look at a tiny baby laying on the table and snuff out whatever life it has left and dispose of it as medical waste, and then go home and live with himself. Hopefully we reach a point in society where abortions are never necessary, via freely available contraception and adoption/support services, but I'm not holding my breath.

Simple. No natural affection.

I think abortions would be no longer needed once they are no longer so freely-available, as you say, which would cause people to be more responsible.

The age of puberty has dropped and since women can become prego at younger ages, the chances of girls becoming more sexually responsible also drops.

I just don't think life is as valued as it once was and some traditional, conservative values are worth keeping and/or returning to.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Mxylplyx, your comments suggest that you think that what we're talking about here are elective abortions. I don't think there's anywhere in the US that you can just waltz into a doctor's office in your third trimester and ask for an abortion. These are pretty much always because of health concerns for the mother or the fetus.

 

[Retro Rob]

Mxylplyx, your comments suggest that you think that what we're talking about here are elective abortions. I don't think there's anywhere in the US that you can just waltz into a doctor's office in your third trimester and ask for an abortion. These are pretty much always because of health concerns for the mother or the fetus.

My bad, I just got caught up in his posts...

 

[Murloc]

The doctor botches a medical procedure. He's liable. Of course it's not that simple.

If you get an abortion at such a late stage and it's not to save the life of the mother then it's probably because some tests came back with severe genetic abnormalities. I don't think that the mother, who chose to abort it, suddenly has to keep it because the doctor screwed up.

I agree with this, in fact it's very likely that it happens due to a medical error since it's usually killed in the womb AFAIK.

 

[randomrogue]

I agree with this, in fact it's very likely that it happens due to a medical error since it's usually killed in the womb AFAIK.

They inject the fetus right into the heart with drugs. Never needed to get an abortion done but I have family that needed a late term abortion since test results came back with like half a dozen extra chromosomes which isn't even on the chart of normal birth defects. Was horrible. I can't imagine how quacky the doctor would have to be to perform the abortion as a live birth.

 

[Mursilis]

One of those situations where there really is no right answer.

Of course there are right answers here. There just aren't easy answers.

Hopefully we reach a point in society where abortions are never necessary, via freely available contraception and adoption/support services, but I'm not holding my breath.

This will never happen. A choice made in the first trimester may not be the same choice made in the second trimester. Humans can be fickle.

 

[fskimospy]

Simple. No natural affection.

I think abortions would be no longer needed once they are no longer so freely-available, as you say, which would cause people to be more responsible.

The age of puberty has dropped and since women can become prego at younger ages, the chances of girls becoming more sexually responsible also drops.

I just don't think life is as valued as it once was and some traditional, conservative values are worth keeping and/or returning to.

Research shows otherwise. The legality or illegality of abortion has little effect on the abortion rate in fact.

I also suggest you do some reading on what America was like before abortion was legal, the stories are not pretty. My grandmother was a nurse in the west village back in the 1930s and her stories about botched abortions and such during a time of "conservative, traditional values" will make your skin crawl.

Thank god for legal abortion.

 

[Zorba]

Simple. No natural affection.

I think abortions would be no longer needed once they are no longer so freely-available, as you say, which would cause people to be more responsible.

I don't think it is a matter of responsibility to choose to conceive a baby with massive defects or choose to put the mother's life in danger in the third trimester.

I think this whole debate about what to do with a live "aborted" fetus is a little bit of a strawman, because abortion happen in the womb. Is there evidence that life birth abortions ever really happen? And if they do are they at all common?

 

[Retro Rob]

Research shows otherwise. The legality or illegality of abortion has little effect on the abortion rate in fact.

..which is why Government probably needs to stay out if it. What would be next, though? Outlawing adultery? Lying? Using God's name in vain? Are we giving them too much leash into our personal lives?

At the end of the day, I probably wouldn't want Government outlawing moral issues. As long as they provide security for my family and I in return for my tax dollars, I am OK!

 

[Pray To Jesus]

One of those situations where there really is no right answer. Abortion is a very unfortunate thing and it is very unfortunate that any woman would feel compelled to do such a thing, but that is the society we live in. I think many women, and doctors, shield themselves from the horrors of abortion by performing the actual procedure in utero, and then extracting the medical "waste" without ever getting a good look at what they have actually done. Having the baby outside the womb, where it is quite apparent that this is indeed a tiny person that is moving independently and struggling to breathe with it's tiny underdeveloped lungs, suddenly makes it ever so apparent that this is a bit more than simply a medical procedure on the mother. Even though I support abortion rights, I dont see how any doctor could look at a tiny baby laying on the table and snuff out whatever life it has left and dispose of it as medical waste, and then go home and live with himself. Hopefully we reach a point in society where abortions are never necessary, via freely available contraception and adoption/support services, but I'm not holding my breath.

I disagree with the sentiment about trying to hide the horrors of abortion. Everyone involved knows exactly what they are doing. It would be a lot more honorable to see and know exactly what you are killing.

A plausible reason why abortion is done in utero is because it's more efficient and less damaging to the mother.

Another reason is that it helps avoid any more difficulties with the legal and moral issue of what is considered a human being.

If the fetus cannot survive outside the womb, should the doctor be merciful and end its suffering? Medically, this can be done by giving opiates to relieve suffering, which given the situation would require lethal doses.