----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 6:27 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On 5/17/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:00 PM > Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American > PoliticalLandscape Today > > >Why do you want to get involved in medical decisions that endanger > pregnant > >women? > > I guess the answer to this lies in the difference between this procedure > and the procedure used sometimes with fetuses that are already known to be > dead. They are simply delivered dead...which is clearly emotionally > tramatizing, but can be the best action for the mother's physical health. > >From what I've been told, sometimes women are asked to carry a dead fetus > until they naturally go into labor, which sound very very difficult. > > So, AFAIK, the differences between these two procedures (not including the > waiting for full term to deliver), is determined by legal, not medical > factors. It is against the law to deliver than terminate the life of the > fetus....that's murder. But, if the delivery is not quite completed, it's > a legal abortion. > >Perhaps your right. I know that dead fetuses are sometimes carried to >term, less medically risky, sometimes. But now some hospitals are >always making them be carried to term because even on a dead fetus >many hospitals will not do a dilation and extraction - too >controversial. First, they could always induce labor...so I think there is a medical reason for carrying the dead fetus to term. I'm not sure why, once the woman is dilated, pushing is all that more dangerous than an extraction. There is the risk of the usual small complications for the woman that's associated with normal childbirth, but I don't see how the risk of death or serious harm is increased greatly by the extra time it takes for pushing a stillborn baby out. IIRC, delivery of even a dead fetus normally is considered safer than any intervention that could be tried. Let me ask a very simple question which bothers me a lot about the legality of third trimester abortions. If a woman finds a hospital and a physician that are agreeable, is it legal to do a dilation and extraction on a fetus that is normally developed, 8 lbs, and 3 days overdue? AFAIK, the answer is yes. How is that being less human than a 8 week 1 lb preme that takes tens of thousands of dollars a day of effort to keep alive? The courts have essentially decided that this is a fact. That is the foundation of Roe vs. Wade. But, I hope you can see how I'm troubled that the order of actions by someone else, not one's own state, determines one's humaness. I saw your quote from "Reproductive Health Matters, and I don't find it intuitive. Since the abortions are illegal, it would be very interesting to see the methodogy of estimation. Looking back at US history, is it really likely that the number of abortions was roughly 40% of the number of births (as it was in the '80s in the US)? I'm also wondering if such a I googled for that term and got this self-definition: " The journal offers in-depth analysis of reproductive health matters from a women-centred perspective, written by and for women's health advocates, researchers, service providers, policymakers and those in related fields with an interest in women's health. Its aim is to promote laws, policies. research and services that meet women's reproductive health needs and support women's right to decide whether, when and how to have children. " at http://gort.ucsd.edu/newjour/r/msg02430.html It's an advocacy magazine, as I guessed. I would not consider it any more objective than the GOP website. :-) Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
