Abortionist Reflects on Dismembering One
Baby While Feeling Her Own Flutter in Her Womb
"There was a leg and foot in my forceps, and a 'thump, thump' in my
abdomen. Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes." So writes
abortionist Lisa Harris in a disturbing article relating her
experiences as an abortionist, particularly her anguished and "brutally
visceral" experience of dismembering an 18 week gestation unborn child,
while 18 weeks pregnant herself.
In the article, entitled "Second Trimester Abortion Provision: Breaking
the Silence and Changing the Discourse," Harris, an abortionist and
assistant professor at the University of Michigan, explains the ethical
position that she says helps her and other abortionists continue
practicing despite the moral and psychological hurdles involved in what
she describes as an undoubtedly "violent" procedure.
"Abortion is different from other surgical procedures," Harris writes
in her candid article. "Even when the fetus has no legal status,
its
moral status is reasonably the subject of much disagreement. It is
disingenuous to argue that removing a fetus from a uterus is no
different from removing a fibroid."
Harris says that there is a need to "cross borders and boundaries
(including seemingly inflexible ones like 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life')"
in order to "reflect seriously on the question of how providers
determine their limit for abortion," and warned that the issues
surrounding the question "may frankly be too dangerous for pro-choice
movements to acknowledge."
Harris then describes how she once performed an abortion on a woman
whose fetus was at 18 weeks gestation. Ironically, Harris herself was
pregnant at the time, and her baby was also at 18 weeks gestation.
Consequently, she explains how she was "more interested than usual in
seeing the fetal parts when I was done, since they would so closely
resemble those of my own fetus."
"I went about doing the procedure as usual," she writes. "I used
electrical suction to remove the amniotic fluid, picked up my forceps
and began to remove the fetus in parts, as I always did. I felt lucky
that this one was already in the breech position - it would make
grasping small parts (legs and arms) a little easier."
With my first pass of the forceps, I grasped an
extremity and began
to pull it down. I could see a small foot hanging from the teeth of my
forceps. With a quick tug, I separated the leg. Precisely at that
moment, I felt a kick - a fluttery "thump, thump" in my own uterus. It
was one of the first times I felt fetal movement. There was a leg and
foot in my forceps, and a "thump, thump" in my abdomen. Instantly,
tears were streaming from my eyes - without me - meaning my conscious
brain - even being aware of what was going on. I felt as if my response
had come entirely from my body, bypassing my usual cognitive processing
completely. A message seemed to travel from my hand and my uterus to my
tear ducts. It was an overwhelming feeling - a brutally visceral
response - heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist
pro-choice politics. It was one of the more raw moments in my life.
Doing second trimester abortions did not get easier after my pregnancy;
in fact, dealing with little infant parts of my born baby only made
dealing with dismembered fetal parts sadder.
Harris concludes that the "visually and viscerally different" component
of a second-trimester abortion, as opposed to a first-trimester one,
leads to questions such as: "What kind of dissociative process inside
us allows us to do this routinely? What normal person does this kind of
work?"
To answer the questions, Harris notes that the "violence" of abortion
must be acknowledged, and relates a "bizarre" experience she once had
of observing a premature baby struggling to survive immediately after
dismembering an unborn child the same age:
The last patient I saw one day was 23 weeks
pregnant. I performed
an uncomplicated D&E procedure. Dutifully, I went through the task
of reassembling the fetal parts in the metal tray. It is an odd ritual
that abortion providers perform - required as a clinical safety measure
to ensure that nothing is left behind in the uterus to cause a
complication - but it also permits us in an odd way to pay respect to
the fetus (feelings of awe are not uncommon when looking at miniature
fingers and fingernails, heart, intestines, kidneys, adrenal glands),
even as we simultaneously have complete disregard for it. Then I rushed
upstairs to take overnight call on labour and delivery. The first
patient that came in was prematurely delivering at 23-24 weeks. As her
exact gestational age was in question, the neonatal intensive care unit
(NICU) team resuscitated the premature newborn and brought it to the
NICU. Later, along with the distraught parents, I watched the neonate
on the ventilator. I thought to myself how bizarre it was that I could
have legally dismembered this fetus-now-newborn if it were inside its
mother's uterus - but that the same kind of violence against it now
would be illegal, and unspeakable.
Harris then goes on to explain that she rationalizes the bizarreness of
the situation by the "location" of the baby, whether it is "inside or
outside of the woman's body," and "most importantly, her [the mother's]
hopes and wishes for that fetus/baby." However, she says, "this
knowledge does not change the reality that there is always violence
involved in a second trimester abortion, which becomes acutely apparent
at certain moments, like this one. I must add, however, that I consider
declining a woman's request for abortion also to be an act of
unspeakable violence."
Harris points out that the abortion lobby's discomfort with "the
violence and, frankly, the gruesomeness of abortion" has led to a
pro-abortion discourse that she says "contradicts an enormous part of"
the abortionist's experience. While pro-abortion activists may claim
abortions "don't really look like" the graphic images often displayed
by pro-life protesters, Harris notes, "to a doctor and clinic team
involved in second trimester abortion, they very well may."
"Of course, acknowledging the violence of abortion risks admitting that
the stereotypes that anti-abortion forces hold of us are true - that we
are butchers, etc.," she adds.
Harris also touches upon the psychological burdens second trimester
abortion care lays upon its providers, including "serious emotional
reactions that produced physiological symptoms, sleep disturbances
(including disturbing dreams), effects on interpersonal relationships
and moral anguish."
Harris tackles the "ethical and moral positions that allow for grey
areas" in abortion provision by advocating the "gradualist perspective"
- stating that "the respect owed to a fetus increases as pregnancy
advances and the fetus becomes more like a born person." This,
she
says, serves to "close the gap between pro-choice rhetoric and the
reality of doing a second trimester abortion," and "allows us to
simultaneously acknowledge the value of early human life and be
woman-centred, an ideal position for a second trimester provider."
While the "gradualist" approach raises the spectre of later abortions
being "more serious" than early abortions, says Harris, the concern is
allayed by the fact that "women have all sorts of compelling and
legitimate reasons for choosing abortion" - particularly, she says, in
second trimester abortions.
Still, for Harris, there remains the problem of abortionists "caught
between pro-choice discourse that, while it reflects our values, does
not accurately reflect the full extent of our experience of abortion
and in fact contradicts an enormous part of it, and the anti-abortion
discourse and imagery that may actually be more closely aligned to our
experience but is based in values we do not share."
Harris conjectures that the needs of abortionists in this regard are
not met because "frank talk like this is threatening to abortion
rights." "While some of us involved in teaching abortion
routinely
speak to our trainees about the aspects of care I've described, we
don't make a habit of speaking about it publicly. Essays like this
bring the inevitable risk that comments will be misinterpreted, taken
out of context and used as evidence for further abortion practice
restrictions," she writes.
"We might conclude at this point that a provider who feels that
abortion is violent is simply ambivalent, conflicted, is not really
committed to women's abortion rights, and just shouldn't be doing this
work," Harris writes. "'Pro-life' supporters may argue that the
kind
of stories and sentiments I've relayed spell the end of abortion - that
honest speech acts regarding the reality of abortion will weaken the
pro-choice movement to the point where it cannot sustain itself any
longer.
However, she contests the point, arguing that, rather than weakening
the argument for abortion, facing abortion with "honesty" can "be the
basis for a stronger movement - one that makes it easier for providers
and the teams they work with to do all abortions, especially second
trimester abortions."
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish
Date: October 15, 2009
Link
to this article.
Send
this article to a friend.
The IFRL is the largest grassroots pro-life organization in
Illinois. A non-profit organization, that serves as the state
coordinating body for local pro-life chapters representing thousands of
Illinois citizens working to restore respect for all human life in our
society. The IFRL is composed of people of different political
persuasions, various faiths and diverse economic, social and ethnic
backgrounds. Since 1973 the Illinois Federation for Right to Life has
been working to end abortion and restore legal protection to those members of the
human family who are threatened by abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. Diverse though we are, we hold one common belief - that
every human being has an inalienable right to life that is precious and must be protected. IFRL is
dedicated to restoring the right to life to the unborn, and protection
for the disabled and the elderly. Click here to learn more about the IFRL.