>-- PAT MATHEWS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hey, Pat -- this is actually my quoting of Dan, not my own opinion: > > > For a right-to-life > > > person, every child has an inalienable right to > > > life. The only possible > > > exception is when their right to life conflicts > with the right to life of > > > the mother. The mother's health is important, of > > > course, but not as > > > critical as the child's life. One would wish, of > > > course, to choose both, > > > but when push comes to shove, the right to life > > > predominates. > > Realistically, in a good many situations, the child > of a mother whose health > is ruined has far less chance of survival than the > child of a healthy > mother. The Bujold list was having a discussion of > pre-eclampsia, for which > the only cure is to deliver the baby early, pray he > survives, and tie the > mother's tubes. Because the next pregnancy is likely > to kill both the mother and the next child. A distinct possibility; I already noted that I would discourage starting a pregnancy in such a case. (BTW, have enjoyed what Bujold I've read.) > There are some religious traditions which would > forbid tying the mother's > tubes. What is the alternative? Death. > IMO the goal is to have both mother and child > thrive, live long, and prosper. Agreed. Debbi who had to restart, darn it, b/c the 'puter got logjammed or whatever it is when you can't go forward, backward or refresh :P __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
