From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 07:35:41 GMT

motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:

I really have to hand it to this otto person.  Rarely have I seen such
a blatant and unbridled display of arrogance and "If I don't know about
it, it doesn't exist" reality avoidance.

>In article <1992Dec30.115614.1641@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.011604.3456@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:

   [re: chopping up babies in the womb]

>>Mary,
>>
>>Such things were not all that uncommon only a couple
>>of generations ago.  There are still rural areas where
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>a C-section could not be obtained in time to save either
>>mother or fetus if such a woman went into labor before
>>the problem was detected.  There are also women who have

>Rural areas where pre-natal care is not available?  Name
>one.  

Try "the Appalachians", for starters.  You know, rural West Virginia, etc?

>And describe the mental impairment which would
>cause a woman to remain in one during the last trimester
>of pregnancy.  

This "mental impairment" you so snottily wave away is called

  P  O  V  E  R  T  Y

and surprise, surprise, lots of people suffer from it right here in the
good old U S of A.  While it might seem inconceivable to a sheltered
rich person that someone wouldn't just pick up and vacation near a
hospital in the late stages of a difficult pregnancy, that attitude
shows a simply stunning blindness to the way the real world works.

>And provide descriptions of the numbers
>of women involved in this type of situation.

How many dead women would you consider significant?  A hundred? A
thousand?  Ten thousand?

>You are grasping at straws if you have to justify your
>case on what happened before 1920.  You are grasping
>at straws if you have to justify your case on what
>happened before 1980.

You are stupid if you can't concieve of a woman giving birth without
the latest spiffy medical technology in the US at this very moment.

>You have no case here, only hysterical, emotional folktales
>designed to stir up the emotions, and devoid of fact and
>relevance.

And of course we must defer to otto on this, as this person has
provided sterling facts to show that this can't possibly happen.
Bleah.

>In the 1910's, far more women died of tuberculosis and polio
>and diptheria and other diseases then ever faced a scenario
>like the one you paint.  

"like the one you paint"?  Would that be dangerous births in general,
or are you restricting your argument to CPM (cephalo-pelvic mismatch)
specifically, just to be on the safe side?  In any event, I have no doubt
that since you make such an absolute statement here, you'll be providing
the numbers to back up your case.

>The risks for those diseases are gone -- 

My Goddess, go and get yourself a clue!  The risks for those diseases are
tiny WITH proper immunization (which itself is not a risk-free procedure),
but a shocking number of US children have not had such immunizations.
Tetanus (and perhaps other diseases as well) requires a booster shot
on the order of once every ten or so years.  Many people in this country
are unprotected against tetanus, simply due to not having had the booster
at the proper time.

>likewise, medical technology has greatly eliminated
>the risk for C-sections.  

IF they are done in a well-equipped hospital with well-trained personnel.
Despite the tunnel vision of many, this is not always the case.  Many
women still give birth at home, where sterile operating facilities are
rarely at hand.

>Let's keep the discussion on realities.

You really should get a better _grasp_ on reality before you make
statements like this.

>>such procedures done because the chances of them surviving
>>surgery are very small.  I agree that cutting up a full-
>If the chances for them surviving the surgery are small,
>then there is no benefit in chopping up a baby that is
>still attached to the woman via the placenta.  The same
>risks of bleeding and infection apply, and the risk of
>cutting the uterus and surrounding veins and arteries
>would equally apply, since it is not as if under the
>primitive conditions you suggest that the "surgeon"
>would have a clear view of what they were cutting.

<sigh>  Once again, slowly.  This is done in cases where the baby
WILL NOT FIT through the birth canal intact.  The procedure is done
so that the baby can be removed without slicing the woman from navel
to pelvis.

>>term fetus is extremely drastic, but it was once the
>>case that the only other choice was often to simply watch
>>the woman die in agony, and then cut her open on the
>>chance that the fetus might survive.  Any text on midwifery
>No, the C-section would always be tried before the mother
>died, on the chance that she would survive it.  Your scenario
>makes no sense.

No, it doesn't make sense, but some religions believe that the mother's
survival or death should be "left in God's hands", and that deliberate
killing of the late-term fetus could not be justified on the basis that
the woman would probably die otherwise.  Once the woman was dead, then
surgery was acceptable.

>>written before 1920 would probably provide you with some
>>enlightenment on this subject.
>>
>>muriel
>>standard disclaimer

>Mary Otto

                          -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion