From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: restrictions
Date: 19 Nov 1992 19:36:21 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <Bxvz6H.Lv1.2@cs.cmu.edu| garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
|In article <1ebb5tINN3cm@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|
|#I think to call a mature baby in the birth canal a foetus is stretching the
|#term.  This is a baby being born.  
|
|
|It's a fetus before birth, and a baby after birth.  I don't think
|it matters all that much which term is used for that entity 
|during birth.  (I don't consider it that big a deal, myself.
|I note that youIf you wish to use "baby" and "birth canal" and
|I choose to use "fetus" and "vagina," I think that we can still
|communicate.

True, but I think we both know that the terms we use say something about our
different views of that entity.  For example, I guess my use of "birth canal"
would be considered sexist by some - I know that my wife vehemently objects
to the term "womb" and prefers to use "uterus".

|#It is certainly offensive to say that the
|#baby is more important than the woman - but is it any less offensive to say
|#the woman is more important than the baby?  I, for one, am prepared to say
|#that they are equally important.  
|
|I don't think that any of the three opinions are inherently
|more offensive - I think that the woman involve's opinion
|is probably the only relevant one, anyway.

The doctor's opinion, if one is present, should be relevant also.  Should the
doctor be seeking the opinions of the woman?  Sure, but is that practical?
It would have to be done before the onset of labour, while she was still
together.

|#I would wish to see both being treated as
|#patients - and this is the normal medical attitude during birth.
|
|You are in Germany, aren't you?  I read a book recently (_Eunuchs
|for the Kingdom of Heaven_, I can't recall the author's name) 
|which mentioned that there are some hospitals in Germany which
|still place a higher priority on saving the baby's life.  I'll
|look up the reference again.

Yep I am. But I'm going home to Ireland next week. Sounds interesting - I'd
guess these hospitals are somewhere in a Catholic region of Germany.  Did you
know that a consequence of the reunification of Germany was a change in the
abortion laws here?  A liberalisation, I think, due to the fact that East
Germany had more liberal abortion laws, and they had to reach some
compromise.  I may have these facts a little garbled - I got it all from a
debate in german on TV, and I speak almost no german.

|My example, of course, involved a problem which would easily be
|solved in any hospital by performing a C-section and saving
|both lives - that's why I specified a non-professional in an
|isolated area.  Thanks to modern medicine, that particular
|problem should be so rare as to be newsworthy.

True, and I agree that in your example, it may well be the only sensible
thing the woman can do.

|#Having said that, I can't offhand think of any related restrictions which
|#would be warranted and workable, and which wouldn't hinder the medical
|#profession, thereby putting women at risk.
|
|I agree.  
|
|I sometimes wonder if supporters of restrictions on late term
|abortions would also like to enact into law restrictions to
|govern the conduct of physicians in every possible instance.
|They seem to ignore the fact that an unscrupulous doctor could
|willfully kill people in other procedures that are not currently
|specifically mentioned in any statute.

I keep getting this image of a car on fire with a woman and an infant trapped
inside - who in their right minds writes a law dictating who's first to be
cut free?

|Susan

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48857 alt.rush-limbaugh:10088