Public opinion frequently focuses on surgical abortions to assess the magnitude of the attempts on life posed by abortion, but it is not often that what we could call the hidden face of abortion or silent abortions are considered. For this reason, we believe it is helpful to analyze where and when the life of the nasciturus is most threatened.
More nasciturus are eliminated using drugs and intrauterine devices that act by an anti-implantation mechanism than using surgical abortion
Where and when is the life of the nasciturus most threatened?
The embryo from its first vital impetus seeks to implant itself in its mother’s womb, but through different and sophisticated abortion techniques, its mother often rejects and kills it, thus cutting short its life non-invasively, silently and covertly. This is the greatest violation of the right to life of the unborn. This threat affects embryos created naturally, mainly as a result of the use of drugs (e.g. Levonogestrel) or anti-implantation mechanism, especially intrauterine devices (e.g. IUD), although it also applies to drugs used in emergency contraception, such as the morning-after or 5-day morning-after pill, since both act via an anti-implantation mechanism in 50% of cases.
From mother’s point of view, aspiration or sirugical abortion appears to be more traumatic than chemical abortion. Is It? Medication abortion takes longer and that they may have a greater awareness of blood loss and passage of pregnancy tissue, particularly at later gestations. For some women, awareness of these aspects of the process may lead them to choose aspiration abortion.
Nevertheless, the so called “medical” or chemical abortion is increasing with the developping of paharmaceutical pills and devices that offer the abortion as a mere miscarriage, more natural and privately.
Characteristics and differences of the two procedures
“The aspiration procedure is typically completed in one office visit, takes place at a health care facility, is performed under local anesthesia and/or conscious sedation, is less than 15 minutes in duration, and, with a greater than 99 percent completion rate , allows patients to leave the visit knowing that the abortion is complete. Medication abortion allows the avoidance of a surgical procedure and anesthesia for the vast majority of patients, and some patients think that the process seems more natural. Some patients prefer medication abortion because they feel they have a greater degree of control over the process as they manage the procedure privately within their own home. Patients should be counseled that medication abortion takes longer and that they may have a greater awareness of blood loss and passage of pregnancy tissue, particularly at later gestations” (“Uptodate” . Feb, 2018).
A large study of both pocedures has been studied by an article in Obstet Gynecol which found these results “The overall incidence of adverse events was fourfold higher in the medical compared with surgical abortion cohort (20.0% compared with 5.6%, P<.001). Hemorrhage (15.6% compared with 2.1%, P<.001) and incomplete abortion (6.7% compared with 1.6%, P<.001) were more common after medical abortion. The rate of surgical (re)evacuation was 5.9% after medical abortion and 1.8% after surgical abortion.”
The risk of increasing Internet aviabibilty of abortions pills is apointed by many institutions, in this sense a recent study affirms “We identified 18 websites and ordered 22 products: 20 mifepristone-misoprostol combination products and 2 that contained only misoprostol. We received 18 combination products and the 2 misoprostol products from 16 different sites. No site required a prescription or any relevant medical information.” (Pacific Standard, 12 3, 2018).
Bioethical and humanitarian appoach
From the point of view of the child, the assault is the same, perhaps more cruel when the abortion occurs in the first step of the life of the tiny and fragile human being who seeks to nest in its mother’s womb. The unsafe