From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:50:41 GMT
Organization: AT&T

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:
>>In article <1992Dec20.063535.19448@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec20.043628.3553@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>>>Not far from my home town (we're talking small town, here!), a pregnant
>>>>woman, in the final stages of pregnancy, was diagnosed as carrying a
>>>>hypercephalic child - literally, big-headed.  The child could not
>>>>survive, and the birth would have killed the mother.  (Caesarians, in
>>>>those days, were much more drastic procedures than now.)  The doctors
>>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>And cutting up a full term baby ISN'T a drastic procedure?
>>This has the ring of folklore about it rather than truth.
>>>>chose to abort - to cut up the child within the womb and extract it
>>>>piece by piece.
>>>Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
>>
>>Ro,
>>I've come to expect better analysis than this from you.
>>Mary
>
>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.  And describe the mental impairment which would
cause a woman to remain in one during the last trimester
of pregnancy.  And provide descriptions of the numbers
of women involved in this type of situation.

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

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.  The risks for those diseases are
gone -- likewise, medical technology has greatly eliminated
the risk for C-sections.  Let's keep the discussion on
realities.

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


Mary Otto
Newsgroups: talk.abortion