NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/abortion/54124

Text File | 1993-01-04 | 5.5 KB | 129 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!timbuk.cray.com!hemlock.cray.com!mon
From: [e-mail] (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 118
Nntp-Posting-Host: hemlock
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Jan 93 15:55:02 CST

[warning: long, not terribly relevant]
In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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.

Try Northern New Mexico, for starters.  Prenatal care
is available, but ultrasound is not, unless the woman
shows some unusual signs which would flag doctors to send
her to an urban hospital.  Many women can't afford to move
their families into the city for a few months.  There are
trade-offs to living in the peaceful mountain villages.
Folk have less access to medical technology in emergencies.
However, there are few who judge each other, or intrude in
other folks' business.

>               And provide descriptions of the numbers
>of women involved in this type of situation.
>
Naaahhhh.  I was merely pointing out that your
'folklore' handwaving was not necessarily in tune with
reality.

>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.
>
It wasn't my case to start with, and I'm not _justifying_
anything on this basis.  But there's no hysteria or folklore
in anything I've said, either.

>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.

Relevance?  I don't think C-sections became safe or
routine until the late 50's.  If anyone has hard data
on this, help me out here. I'm in no position to get to
a good library in the next few weeks, due to family
commitments.  My point is that the original anecdote
is quite plausible from the context of my own childhood.
No date was given, but those of us who are, uh, getting
on towards middle age, grew up in an era where women
were not often cut open during childbirth.

>
>>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.

This information is not correct.  You can look up
'craniotomy' for starters.

>>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.

Before anasthesia?

>>written before 1920 would probably provide you with some
>>enlightenment on this subject.
>>
I've been looking through my archives for an old
posting of Nadja's in which she describes her
reaction to an artifact called a 'baptismal syringe'.
I don't have it.  Nadja, would you mind repeating?

muriel
standard disclaimer