From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 17:57:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.050552.130@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.030848.7926@bmerh85.bnr.ca> 
>nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>
>>>> who is qualified to decide
>>>> when the health reasons are sufficient to justify an abortion?  
>
>>> I believe that most physicians are qualified to determine whether
>>> an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother.  Why do
>>> you believe otherwise? 
>
>> First - there are health risks other than death (the point has been
>> made before - I guess you missed it).
>
>Physical health complications occur in a small minority of
>pregnancies.  I fail to understand how these cases justify 
>unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.

There are health complications in all pregnancies, ranging from the
trivial (stretch marks) to the serious (post-natal depression, for
example - clinical depression can be aggravated by depression) to
the deadly.  Who gets to decide where to draw the line?  You, or the
woman and her physician?  You've already said you're not qualified . . .

>I'm not a physician, so I'm not qualified to determine whether
>an abortion is necessary to save a woman's life. 

Ah, so you do feel qualified to draw the line - only to save a woman's
life.

Is even a physician fully qualified to make this decision?  What about
the doctor who believes a pregnancy to be too dangerous, but the woman
feels it's worth the risk and decides to go through with it, with little
or no health effects?  Or the depressive woman who might (yes, might)
have her depression aggravated enough to make her suicidal.  Can you
quantify that risk?  Can even a physician do so?

(I know of one case where a pregnancy led to a depressive woman killing
not only herself, but her two older children.  In that case, she had
chosen to continue the pregnancy, but by your rules would she have been
allowed to choose not to?  There was only a chance something might go
wrong, after all, it wasn't a clearcut case of saving the mother's
life.)

>> Or do you disagree the woman should have any say in the matter?  If so,
>> consider the opposite (and not uncommon) situation - the physician
>> believes the pregnancy to be too risky, but the woman chooses to
>> accept the risk and continue with the pregnancy.  Now, tell me the
>> woman doesn't have a say in the matter . . .
>
>How does this situation justify unrestricted abortion-on-demand? 

Because all pregnancies involve some risk.  Who decides if this risk
is acceptable?  Are you going to decide that abortion is acceptable
if the risk of the mother dying is higher than a certain percentage?
Remember, the risk is never 0, and seldom 100%!  So, what's an
acceptable percentage?

>> But you've already set limits - only to save the life of the mother, 
>> and other health consequences be damned.  
>
>No, the physician sets limits.  I'm just a bystander.

You've already set a limit - "to save a woman's life".  Except it's
seldom cut-and-dried, is it?

>> So you do consider yourself
>> qualified to dictate how much health risk someone else should be
>> prepared to face, don't you?
>
>No, I don't consider myself qualified to determine how much
>health risk someone should face, since I'm not a physician.

So if a physician agrees to perform an abortion, you won't object?
(Guess what, this is what happens in EVERY medical abortion - the
physician agrees that the abortion is justified . . .)

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: talk.abortion