Woon Ee Laine G5

Extended Response Question: Partial Birth Abortion

Natural born instinct obliges not just man, but all living creatures to protect their
young. It therefore comes as no surprise that whenever babies and children are involved,
people are especially protective. The justification of abortion has long been debated by
mankind. However, of late, a more pressing issue has risen. The uproar on partial-birth
abortion is not without reason as it is believed to be the cruelest form of abortion yet.
Despite the health of the mother being the main reason for any kind of abortion (White,
2007), partial abortion should be banned. This is because it is a form of extreme cruelty, has
better alternatives and imposes risks to the general health of the mother.

First and foremost, partial-birth abortion should be banned because it is extremely

cruel to abort the baby in said way. As stated in the Partial Birth-Abortion Act signed into
law by President George Bush on November 5, 2003, partial-birth abortion is a “gruesome
and inhumane procedure” (White, 2007). This is largely due to the fact that partial-birth
abortion is carried out during the last three months of pregnancy where 80% of the babies
are normal and healthy (Wilke, 2005). As such, the fetus can definitely feel the pain during
the procedure when a pair of scissors is stuck into its brain, the hole enlarged with a catheter
vacuuming the brain out, crushing the skull (Joseph, n.d.). In all reality, the truth is that no
one knows of the pain and suffering the fetus experiences (What are the facts on the partial-
birth abortion ban?, 2009). This act is especially an irrational cruelty as these babies are
mostly healthy and only a few inches from delivery (Wilke, 2005). After reaching stable
conditions, the baby could very well be given up for adoption (Wilke, 2005). With said
option, it would therefore be extremely cruel to kill the baby through partial-birth abortion.

Another reason why partial-birth abortion should be banned is that there are better
alternatives compared to it. In fact, partial-birth abortion is never medically compulsory to
preserve a mother’s health and fertility (What are the facts on the partial-birth abortion
ban?, 2009). This is agreed by both former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, other
prominent medical authorities (What are the facts on the partial-birth abortion ban?, 2009)
and Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education at the Department of Ob-Gyn of the
Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago (Wilke, 2005). There are, in fact, safer alternatives to partial-
birth abortion (Wilke, 2005). Great advancements in pre-natal technology have resulted in
no necessity of partial-birth abortion (Wilke, 2005). These advancements include the
Cesarean Section and premature delivery that assists both the mother and the child (Wilke,
2005). Besides that, women may also deal with unwanted pregnancies by giving up the born
babies for adoption (What are the facts on the partial-birth abortion ban?, 2009)
 Finally, partial-abortion imposes general health risks to the mother. There is no
written proof that partial-birth abortions are safe as they are indeed very dangerous (Wilke,
2005). This was proven when President Bill Clinton banned pro-partial-abortion laws due to
inadequate safeguards for women’s health (White, 2007). Due to the three-day span of forced
cervical dilation, the cervix may well lose its ability to support future pregnancies (Wilke,
2005). The process of rotating the fetus in the womb (Wilke, 2005) and drawing out the baby
in breech position (Richards, n.d.) could rupture and tear the uterus. The mother could then
very well bleed to death in just ten minutes (Richards, n.d.). The removal of the collapsed
skull of the fetus also imposes threats (What are the facts on the partial-birth abortion ban?,
2009) as the bone shards may puncture the uterus (Richards, n.d.). Other potential health
threats include amniotic fluid embolism, placental abruption and infections that could lead to
sterility (Wilke, 2005). Besides physiological risks, partial-birth abortion may also cause
stress (What are the facts on the partial-birth abortion ban?, 2009) and psychological trauma
to the mother (Wilke, 2005). Women tend to feel regretful and guilty over their decision
post-abortion (What are the facts on the partial-birth abortion ban?, 2009). As such, it is
undeniable that partial-birth abortion threatens the general health of the mother.

In summary, partial-birth abortion should be banned by all means. This is because

partial-birth abortion is an extremely cruel abortion method, there are better alternatives to
it and the procedure imposes many risks to the health of the mother. Whilst early abortion
for personal reasons may be acceptable, partial-abortion is completely unacceptable as it is
carried out during the last trimester of pregnancy causing it to be a senseless act of cruelty.
Besides the extreme cruelty of the procedure, partial-birth abortion also threatens the
mother’s health in numerous ways. With said better alternatives, partial-birth abortion
should be prohibited. After all, there can be no doubt at all that the aborted fetus does not
feel every bit of the pain it is subjected to during the procedure.