From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:57:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.003837.16527@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.000047.21506@cs.yale.edu> 
>Thanks for posting these statistics. No offense intended, but these
>figures seem to be out of date. I believe the current mortality rate 
>for childbirth is somewhere around 10 per 100,000 births, which is 
>lower than any of the abortion procedures performed after 16 weeks.
>The reported mortality rate for abortion has dropped since the 70s,
>and perhaps the differences between procedures has also changed.
Hmmm....You have documentation?
Granted mine isn't great, but it's better than you've presented,
which is zilch.

>These numbers might be "significant", but that's debatable. Some 
>pro-choicers like to point out that the reported percentage of third 
>trimester abortions is "insignificant", yet at a rate of 10 per
>100,000 abortions, that rate is on the same order as the absolute
>differences in the mortality rates between the D&E and prostaglandin. 
I think relative magnitude is what is important here.

>Also, these figures might give a rough idea of the relative safety
>of different abortion procedures, but I'm not certain they can be
>applied to individuals. For example, some women obtain late abortions
>for medically indicated reasons, and these women generally suffer
>higher mortality rates due in part to their medical conditions. 
Yes, but is choice of method usually influenced by medical
indications? Remember, the stats I showed were broken down by
time period.

As for whether stats can be applied to individuals, well, that's
the whole point of collecting statistics.

>> That's probably true. Does prostaglandin usually cause significant
>> damage to a fetus? If so, I can see how survival might be a negative.
>> If the possibility is of healthy fetal survival, choosing
>> a D+E merely to ensure fetal death is reprehensible, IMHO.
>
>I'm pretty sure that prostaglandin does not directly damage 
>the fetus since it can be administered through the vagina, but 
>there's always a risk of fetal death in any abortion procedure.
>But "possible fetal survival" was also listed as a disadvantage
>in a hysterotomy.
Hmmm...Like I said, I can't speak for abortion providers. IMHO, to
choose a method of abortion designed only to kill the fetus is
reprehensible.

>> I think that a woman SHOULD be entitled to have an abortion
>> of a child with Down syndrome, however, the justification is
>> certainly not one of risk to the mother. [I would consider this
>> to be merely a special case of the more general right to abortion.]
>
>Then what is the justification for aborting a fetus with Down's syndrome?
That the woman's choice to have an abortion should not be interfered with.
I.e. A woman has a right to an abortion, period. This then implies
the right to abort a fetus with Down syndrome.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
              Golden Anniversary: It's bad beer, but it's beer.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion