At 08:46 PM Tuesday 5/17/2005, Dan Minette wrote:
----- 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.
Do any of the medical personnel on the list have any information or comments here?
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.
The short answer is that if a line has to be drawn, it has to be drawn somewhere. As I think we have shown already in this and previous discussions, no matter where the line is drawn, there are going to be cases which come near the line (on both sides) where following the rule is going to make some people unhappy. OTOH, if no line is drawn beforehand, and each case has to be decided individually, then the question becomes who makes that decision in each case, and again I can guarantee that there is going to be someone who is unhappy with every such decision made.
Stating The Bloody Obvious Maru
-- Ronn! :)
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
