The main defense of partial birth abortion is really one of geometry, not health. It stands to reason that if a woman's life is legitimately threatened by giving birth that it would just make more sense to perform a caesarean section on her and guarantee that both the mother and the child have a reasonable shot of living. Like torture, it's flat out unrealistic that a medical doctor would ever encounter a "ticking timebomb scenario" where he could safely and effectively perform a partial birth abortion on a woman who truly needed it in order to live and who could not just as easily have a caesarean section instead. The health scenarios used to defend it are as unlikely as federal agents reliving a scene from 24 when interrogating an Islamist.
So that leaves geometry. Adjust the child's three dimensional coordinates by no more than a foot each, and voi la! In the radical pro-choice mind the "parasite" becomes a human being! It goes from being fair game inside the mother's womb, to being a rights-endowed child that must be protected. Nevermind the fact that the difference between the child itself inside the womb and outside the womb is so infintessimally small that we lack the scientific tools to measure the difference between the before and after.
That's why pro-lifers are outraged when the other side defends partial birth abortion. When geometry is what stands between the child and its claim to personhood, the argument has reached a sick level of legalism and technicality that is nothing more than an excuse to liquidate inconvenient human lives. As I said, health is clearly not a justification here. A caesarean section would be just as effective in all practical cases, and yet it would also provide an opportunity to save both the mother and the child. So it really does come down to geometry and a desire to find any excuse, no matter how pathetic, to remove an inconvenience.
As far as abortions go, partial birth is almost as sickening as it gets. The only thing that is worse is that there are those who support not even given medical treatment to the babies who survive a botched abortion.
Let's face it, this debate is not about definitions. It's about the idea that it conveniences some to kill others.
The pro-choice side would have more currency if they would unequivocally condemn those who take this position. It would at least profer them the illusion that they are not advocating for a right of homicide.
Come to think of it. Pater familias was the legal institution that allowed a father to order his daughters to be drowned at birth if he didn't want them. I think we should adopt "Mater Familias" as a new name for abortion since it'd really fit how abortion works in the West.
Keep in mind that some are now advocating drastically reduced criminal liability for women who kill their born babies within a certain period following birth (some advocate a couple of years) due to post partum depression and related issues. If such laws come to the US (they exist already in other countries) the logic of absolute female control over children will be complete, and include even the right to kill their born infants without much legal liability.
I am well aware of this unfortunate issue. Peter Singer, an infamous "bioethicist" has argued for the right to dipose of children with defects even after birth. That he is not an abject pariah is not a good sign.
I consider bioethicists to be more unclean by an order of magnitude than even leftist politicians and/or lawyers.