Brave New Womb

[unsinkable]

Around here, we like to cite our sources.

It's more like...if I disagree with you on a fundamental level I'm going to demand you cite every little comment. But if I agree with you, post whatever you want.

[Guest]

I said nothing about families wanting to throw in the towel, did I?

 

 

I see the parents of children with severe disabilities 10 years later, weary to the bone and wondering when CPS will finally swoop in to take not just their disabled child but their able bodied children away too because they have finally broken.

To be fair I know a good half dozen families with complex and medically fragile kiddos, some with several, and haven't really seen this as a concern? Marriage trouble is more of an issue, honestly.

[HTRMom]

This is false. The RCC teaches that direct abortion is always wrong. Medical procedures whose purpose is to end the baby's life are not permitted. Treating the mother to save her her life is permitted even if the result is the death of the baby.

That's correct. It's a semantic argument. We Catholics believe that you can induce labor before viability, do a hysterectomy, remove a tube, etc, which will kill the baby, in order to save the mother, if the death of the baby is not directly intended, and that is not an abortion. It's the same effect as "abortion should be legal to save the mother" but stated in a way that is more logically consistent and also more confusing to the average person.

[Mergath]

It's more like...if I disagree with you on a fundamental level I'm going to demand you cite every little comment. But if I agree with you, post whatever you want.

 

When someone is posting statistics, it's common sense to also show where you got them. That's true no matter which side of an argument you fall onto. Even if someone doesn't link to the study, most people will at least say, "According to the blah blah research group..."

[Mergath]

Any sources about historical times in which illegal abortions were bad for society?

 

Of course a mother's life means very much. I don't think that certain lifesaving procedures are abortions at all, if the death of the baby is not directly intended but an unfortunate consequence of saving the mother's life. Anyway, those are less than five percent of abortions, over 90% have no medical indication whatsoever.

 

Seriously? Does the image of a wire coat hanger ring any bells for you?

 

Here, this should get you started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_abortion  Pay special attention to the "Methods" section and explain to me how women doing this to themselves could ever possibly be good for society.

[MercyA]

Sorry you've got a sick kid, and feel free to answer later.  But does that mean that you believe that in all cases extreme measures should be pursued?  Is there ever a reason to decide "to let nature take it's course" rather than try everything that is available?  Because to me the conversation is about when to pursue those measures and when (if ever) it does not seem the best choice. 

 

No and yes. I don't think we should base these types of decisions on our idea of what constitutes a "quality" life or on whether someone will be disabled and require extra care. However, if a treatment is excessively painful and has little chance of success, I think it is fine to default to providing nutrition and comfort care.

[maize]

Freakonomics famously suggested there is a direct benefit to society of abortions - that unwanted children of today become the criminals of tomorrow, and the proof is the direct correlation of falling crime rates to abortion rates.

I'm sure many will find this offensive, but my thought when I read that part of the book was that it sounded an awful lot like death-penalty-as-prophylactic; of course if the babies die before they are ever born they never have a chance to commit criminal acts!

 

I would like to live in a society where there are supports and opportunities and choices such that abortion for anything less than serious medical causes would be unthinkable. I can't see my way around believing that "human life is valuable but only once a certain point in development is reached".

 

The world we live in though is one where the supports and opportunities I would dream of are often not available; that complicates matters considerably and legislation is often a very poor substitute for the case by case decision making that is necessary to navigate real life. As horrific as I find the thought of elective abortion (particularly when I am feeling supremely protective of the life growing inside me!) I would rather work to legislate good medical care, provide for housing and food and education, etc. than try to determine by law when an abortion may be performed.

[HTRMom]

Seriously? Does the image of a wire coat hanger ring any bells for you?

 

Here, this should get you started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_abortion Pay special attention to the "Methods" section and explain to me how women doing this to themselves could ever possibly be good for society.

From the article you've cited yourself, legalizing abortion in third-world countries would not necessarily make it safe. Making it illegal in a first-world country would not necessarily make it unsafe. Most "back alley" abortions before Roe v Wade were performed by medical professionals in sterile, legal medical clinics. Yes, in countries with poor medical care, abortions are also poor quality.

[sassenach]

I said nothing about families wanting to throw in the towel, did I?

 

 

I see the parents of children with severe disabilities 10 years later, weary to the bone and wondering when CPS will finally swoop in to take not just their disabled child but their able bodied children away too because they have finally broken.

You're right, that was my paraphrasing. Your original post (the one I quoted) was a quoted response to Arctic Mom, who is just starting life with a disabled child. You shared one end of the spectrum, my point was to share the other end.

[unsinkable]

When someone is posting statistics, it's common sense to also show where you got them. That's true no matter which side of an argument you fall onto. Even if someone doesn't link to the study, most people will at least say, "According to the blah blah research group..."

Here? On this board? I'm drawing a blank on the last time I saw that happen.

 

What I'D like to see are citation for CASes. That stands for "Crazy Arsed Stories." So if someone has a story that supports their claim but the story is crazy arsed, they should link a newspaper story.

[Julie Smith]

opps. Sorry.

Edited April 28, 2017 by Julie Smith

[HTRMom]

On that chart, is he row labelled, "12 and under" meaning the mother is 12 or younger?

It says by weeks of gestation.

[Julie Smith]

It says by weeks of gestation.

Yup. I saw that right after I posted.

 

Thanks.

Edited April 28, 2017 by Julie Smith

[Paige]

Making it illegal in a first-world country would not necessarily make it unsafe. Most "back alley" abortions before Roe v Wade were performed by medical professionals in sterile, legal medical clinics. 

 

Is that why my aunt died in the USA from an illegal abortion leaving behind 3 small children? Because it was safe and sterile? 

 

I can't believe that any source that gave you that info is legit. 

[HTRMom]

Is that why my aunt died in the USA from an illegal abortion leaving behind 3 small children? Because it was safe and sterile?

 

I can't believe that any source that gave you that info is legit.

I don't know a thing about your aunt, obviously.

 

I have read that the number of deaths from illegal abortion circa 1970 was very low, 100-200 women in the US. I've read that the numbers were a gross exaggeration made up to legalize abortion. I have read these things in biased sources. I have looked up their CDC citations and found that they lump miscarriage with induced abortion and are useless.

 

My poor source:

http://www.equip.org/PDF/DA020-1.pdf

 

I challenge you to find a credible statistic that many women died in the 60s and 70s before Roe v Wade from unsafe abortion. I am convinced that it happened in very small numbers. But please, prove me wrong with data. If you cannot, it's one biased source against another.

 

Adults die from complications all kinds of surgeries in the US today. And of course there was probably some small fraction of non-medical, truly unsanitary abortions then. Heck, I'm pretty sure there are a few of those even today.

[HTRMom]

*quote removed by request without which post does not have context*

 

Oh, got it. Since only a certain group of people has this opinion, then it's irrelevant. And maybe even a disliked group of people?

 

Look, totally reliable BuzzFeed says that various countries around the world are more or less opposed than we Americans are. (Yes, I know this is mostly a joke.)

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-23-countries-around-the-world-feel-about-abortio?utm_term=.quzKlP40W#.nux5Xgyzw

 

You will also have to write off most Africans and half of South Americans and Asians as irrelevant, leaving Europe as the be all and end all enlightened supporters of abortion rights. But even there, I could find a solid 10-20% who agree with my patronizing ideas.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_towards_abortion

Edited April 28, 2017 by HTRMom

[FaithManor]

And again, the topic is about this technology, the cost, the implementation, access, ethical choices of when to use when to not, etc. Does anyone have ANYTHING to say about that?

 

Are there any articles indicating the cost of development and implementation? It seems like a very exciting innovation but I suspect that insurance will not want to cover it. To be honest, with profits being the front and center consideration of the health industry, I wonder how many years it will take for the price tag to drop enough to be included in standard coverage.

[Catwoman]

 

Forgive me if I am not expressing myself well--I have a sick child and am running on very little sleep.  :)

I hope your little one feels better soon and that no one else in the house catches whatever it is! :grouphug:

[HTRMom]

From the Guttmacher Policy Review, for anyone who wants a picture of stats re illegal abortion before Roe vs Wade.

 

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2003/03/lessons-roe-will-past-be-prologue

 

Of particular note is the disproportionate effect on women of color.

 

FYI only. Not posted to invite discussion.

They are a pro-abortion lobbying group and have cited no source whatsoever, so I take it as biased rambling.

[Katy]

This is false. The RCC teaches that direct abortion is always wrong. Medical procedures whose purpose is to end the baby's life are not permitted. Treating the mother to save her her life is permitted even if the result is the death of the baby.

Check my statement again.  I said to save the life of the mother or when it is likely to save the life of the mother.  You're arguing about nothing, and frankly unless you've been the person to call in the priest to talk to a sobbing woman who'd prayed to get pregnant for years and is now pregnant but that pregnancy may kill her, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

 

I'm sure many will find this offensive, but my thought when I read that part of the book was that it sounded an awful lot like death-penalty-as-prophylactic; of course if the babies die before they are ever born they never have a chance to commit criminal acts!

 

I would like to live in a society where there are supports and opportunities and choices such that abortion for anything less than serious medical causes would be unthinkable. I can't see my way around believing that "human life is valuable but only once a certain point in development is reached".

 

The world we live in though is one where the supports and opportunities I would dream of are often not available; that complicates matters considerably and legislation is often a very poor substitute for the case by case decision making that is necessary to navigate real life. As horrific as I find the thought of elective abortion (particularly when I am feeling supremely protective of the life growing inside me!) I would rather work to legislate good medical care, provide for housing and food and education, etc. than try to determine by law when an abortion may be performed.

 

You know that (bolded) is true, but at the same time, you cannot legislate attachment, and we are coming to find out that early attachment is a need. Psychologists may say in the first 6 years of life but as a foster parent I actually think the first year is the most important. Even the first 6 months. Attachment is not a matter of poverty, it's a matter of parental attitude and ability. While it might be controversial to discuss the link between childhood attachment disorders and adult personality disorders (it's unethical to diagnose a child with a personality disorder), most therapists will acknowledge there is a link in a whisper.  There is no doubt in my mind that infants that are unwanted, unloved, resented, or neglected are much less likely to have compassion for others and much more likely to commit crime.  We can take children away from parents in the most dramatic examples of risk, but we can't go back and fix what they didn't get in their first few years. Sometimes I think that one perspective focuses on the ideal to the exclusion of reality, and the other perspective focuses on the worst case scenario to the exclusion of the ideal, and ignoring the entire perspective misses out on the truth.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

They are a pro-abortion lobbying group and have cited no source whatsoever, so I take it as biased rambling.

 

Actually the do cite a previous article (Trends in Abortion in the United States, 1973-2000) which if you look it up you will see it references a variety of statistics (the earlier data comes from National Center for Health Statistics).  They do note that there is no comprehensive data on deaths from illegal abortions and that estimates vary widely.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

They are a pro-abortion lobbying group and have cited no source whatsoever, so I take it as biased rambling.

 

Similar article with citations.

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2004/01/public-health-impact-legal-abortion-30-years-later#2

[HTRMom]

You're right, they do cite that further down. But that article says nothing whatsoever pre-1973, so their hundreds of thousands statistic is pure hearsay in this instance.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mergath]

From the article you've cited yourself, legalizing abortion in third-world countries would not necessarily make it safe. Making it illegal in a first-world country would not necessarily make it unsafe. Most "back alley" abortions before Roe v Wade were performed by medical professionals in sterile, legal medical clinics. Yes, in countries with poor medical care, abortions are also poor quality.

 

So your argument is that only some women will die horrible, agonizing deaths if abortion is made illegal, so you don't see the problem?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You're right, they do cite that further down. But that article says nothing whatsoever pre-1973, so their hundreds of thousands statistic is pure hearsay in this instance.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Read the link I posted.  They do cite a source that covers pre-1973.

2. Abernathy JR, Greenberg BG and Horvitz DG, Estimates of induced abortion in urban North Carolina, Demography, 1970, 7(1):19-29.

[FaithManor]

You know that (bolded) is true, but at the same time, you cannot legislate attachment, and we are coming to find out that early attachment is a need. Psychologists may say in the first 6 years of life but as a foster parent I actually think the first year is the most important. Even the first 6 months. Attachment is not a matter of poverty, it's a matter of parental attitude and ability. While it might be controversial to discuss the link between childhood attachment disorders and adult personality disorders (it's unethical to diagnose a child with a personality disorder), most therapists will acknowledge there is a link in a whisper. There is no doubt in my mind that infants that are unwanted, unloved, resented, or neglected are much less likely to have compassion for others and much more likely to commit crime. We can take children away from parents in the most dramatic examples of risk, but we can't go back and fix what they didn't get in their first few years. Sometimes I think that one perspective focuses on the ideal to the exclusion of reality, and the other perspective focuses on the worst case scenario to the exclusion of the ideal, and ignoring the entire perspective misses out on the truth.

Agreed. My PTSD therapist admitted that there is a relationship between RAD and Sociopathy. For two years I was a respite care worker for foster families with foster children who suffered from RAD. While in most cases the known cause was extreme abuse and neglect, there were some cases of children who had been very ill infants who suffered a great deal of pain, some of them coming from loving, attentive families so the context in which they suffered was that of having plenty of love and affection, positive physical attention, yet the RAD still occurred. So I do think that in these discussions it is important to wrangle with that issue.

 

In terms of the artificial womb, it does not sound like the actual implementation would bring added pain and discomfort to the infant. That is a definite positive. Double positives if it can be adapted to allow physical closeness to mom and others in order to further assist with bonding and development. But I do think that it would be valuable to have a research group gather data on the emotional and mental stability of preemies in the long term and specifically micro preemies. Early intervention is the key, and if there is a greater chance of RAD at a certain gestational age and below, then that is vital information for parents to have so they can get help sooner than later, recogniZe the signs. If we are going to pull out all the stops to keep a baby alive against all odds, then it only seems logical to begin looking at ways to improve outcomes besides just "surviving", and that includes future mental health. Given how quickly medical advances are being made, it seems as though protocols for improving long term outcomes in mental health should be front and center.

 

Sadly though, I think that often this type of research, and especially for children, lags significantly behind the life support technology. Probably this is caused by lack of funding, but I also think sometimes that it is the less glamorous end of pediatric research and suffers for want of "glitz" and prestige. It is a big, national pat on the back to say, "We found a new way to save babies." It is hardly noteworthy in our society for someone to say, "We think that babies born before 24 weeks gestation are at a higher risk for RAD than other preemies, and as such, should receive early intervention therapies and bonding strategies as standard protocol."

 

And I am not saying that I think that RAD or anything else is necessarily an issue here. Just that it along with other complications are valid concerns that should be explored by researchers. Life is messy, intricate, easily disturbed. It is not enough to just save a human life for the sake thereof. Every medical intervention that seriously messes with developmental processes should come with it some pretty major research that forms protocols for implementation and follow up.

[Paige]

I don't know a thing about your aunt, obviously.

 

I have read that the number of deaths from illegal abortion circa 1970 was very low, 100-200 women in the US. I've read that the numbers were a gross exaggeration made up to legalize abortion. I have read these things in biased sources. I have looked up their CDC citations and found that they lump miscarriage with induced abortion and are useless.

 

My poor source:

http://www.equip.org/PDF/DA020-1.pdf

 

I challenge you to find a credible statistic that many women died in the 60s and 70s before Roe v Wade from unsafe abortion. I am convinced that it happened in very small numbers. But please, prove me wrong with data. If you cannot, it's one biased source against another.

 

Adults die from complications all kinds of surgeries in the US today. And of course there was probably some small fraction of non-medical, truly unsanitary abortions then. Heck, I'm pretty sure there are a few of those even today.

 

How can you disregard Sadie's link as biased, yet present a study from the Christian Research Institute as legit? Either sources with an agenda are suspect or they aren't. It shouldn't be that sources from a preferred side are legit and those from the other side are all bad. I have been unable to find any sources from a purely unbiased source. It seems that the only people interested in reporting on mortality from illegal abortions are people from organizations biased one way or the other. Both sides are saying official stats support their numbers, but the numbers are vastly different, and I cannot find their sources easily online to check for myself. If sources from people with an agenda are not credible we really have no data and nothing to talk about. 

 

The most neutral I can find in a quick search is this one from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm

 

The relevant information is in the 2nd body paragraph under the heading "Maternal Mortality." It says that in the 1930s half of the 40% of maternal deaths that were caused by sepsis were from illegal abortion. You'd have to find the source to see how many deaths were from sepsis, but it is likely more than 39. Then it said that the legalization of abortion caused an 89% reduction in deaths from septic illegal abortions. Again, numbers aren't given.

 

Still, like all shameful causes of death, you must assume that the official stats and mortality rates are significantly less than the actual death rates because of under reporting.  Death was probably officially listed as sepsis, unknown, natural causes, or anything more socially acceptable. Suicide, drug overdoses, incest, rapes: these are all things that we know are under reported. I do not know anything about my aunt's death either, but I know my family was very poor back then. My other aunt used to beg for food from neighbors as a child with her baby brother. I don't know about her situation because she died long before I was born and it was hushed up. I actually didn't learn about her cause of death until just this year! 

 

Wealthy women had access to safe illegal abortions. Poor women did not. We may not be able to agree on numbers, and we may not be able to ever know what was really going on for people before abortion was legalized because people did their best to hide it. What we do have is a lot of personal stories, and the stories are horrifying. I know a lot of anecdotes don't make data, but at the same time, the stories from real families should not be dismissed. 

[HTRMom]

Similar article with citations.

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2004/01/public-health-impact-legal-abortion-30-years-later#2

This one cites the proceedings of a Planned Patenthood conference as a source for pre-1973, but it's a book and I don't think I could have any way to access it.

[maize]

Check my statement again. I said to save the life of the mother or when it is likely to save the life of the mother. You're arguing about nothing, and frankly unless you've been the person to call in the priest to talk to a sobbing woman who'd prayed to get pregnant for years and is now pregnant but that pregnancy may kill her, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

 

 

You know that (bolded) is true, but at the same time, you cannot legislate attachment, and we are coming to find out that early attachment is a need. Psychologists may say in the first 6 years of life but as a foster parent I actually think the first year is the most important. Even the first 6 months. Attachment is not a matter of poverty, it's a matter of parental attitude and ability. While it might be controversial to discuss the link between childhood attachment disorders and adult personality disorders (it's unethical to diagnose a child with a personality disorder), most therapists will acknowledge there is a link in a whisper. There is no doubt in my mind that infants that are unwanted, unloved, resented, or neglected are much less likely to have compassion for others and much more likely to commit crime. We can take children away from parents in the most dramatic examples of risk, but we can't go back and fix what they didn't get in their first few years. Sometimes I think that one perspective focuses on the ideal to the exclusion of reality, and the other perspective focuses on the worst case scenario to the exclusion of the ideal, and ignoring the entire perspective misses out on the truth.

I think you are right about attachment.

 

And also about the dangers of focusing exclusively on one perspective or another. Life is complex. Morality in the real world is rarely black and white and there are no set answers that apply to every situation.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This one cites the proceedings of a Planned Patenthood conference as a source for pre-1973, but it's a book and I don't think I could have any way to access it.

 

This one? Abernathy JR, Greenberg BG and Horvitz DG, Estimates of induced abortion in urban North Carolina, Demography, 1970, 7(1):19-29.

 

Not a Planned Parenthood Conference. 

Demography

February 1970, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 19–29

 

Demography: http://link.springer.com/journal/13524

[FaithManor]

I give up.

 

The whole dang discussion is infuriating because the topic is a form of medical technology that might improve odds for micro preemies but also may bring with it some ethical conundrums, and it is impossible to even have the discussion.

 

And.let me.set.The.record.straight.

 

None of us that have faced the horror really care what someone else's church has to say about our decision to be currently amongst the living.

 

Arctic and Happy, tons of hugs from me if you have tried to hang on for a meaningful discussion of technology that must be an idea near and dear to your hearts only to have it descend into a disaster.

 

Let's hope the technology is developed quickly with all the appropriate treatment protocols in place and with luck, funding for all the babies whose parents would choose it.

 

Does anyone else think the next step is to move to primate testing? Is it too soon? Knowing what I know about lambs, I can see why that mammal was the jumping off spot, but do not see a way forward without moving to primates as lamb gestation and development just is not close enough to human. The article did not mention next steps so I have to wonder how close they are to making that leap.

Edited April 28, 2017 by FaithManor

[maize]

I wondered about primate testing as well. I imagine it is many, many times more expensive than lambs.

 

I do hope This technology is further developed and may prove a viable tool in the future. I don't think any new medical technology is free from complex ethical implications.

[Guest]

I give up.

 

The whole dang discussion is infuriating because the topic is a form of medical technology that might improve odds for micro preemies but also may bring with it some ethical conundrums, and it is impossible to even have the discussion.

 

And.let me.set.The.record.straight.

 

None of us that have faced the horror really care what someone else's church has to say about our decision to be currently amongst the living.

 

Arctic and Happy, tons of hugs from me if you have tried to hang on for a meaningful discussion of technology that must be an idea near and dear to your hearts only to have it descend into a disaster.

 

Let's hope the technology is developed quickly with all the appropriate treatment protocols in place and with luck, funding for all the babies whose parents would choose it.

 

Does anyone else think the next step is to move to primate testing? Is it too soon? Knowing what I know about lambs, I can see why that mammal was the jumping off spot, but do not see a way forward without moving to primates as lamb gestation and development just is not close enough to human. The article did not mention next steps so I have to wonder how lose they are to making that leap.

I'm just ignoring the abortion comments.  I'm vehemently pro life and acknowledge the ethical difficulties, but just like IVF I think these can be mitigated legally and the entire thing doesn't have to be banned because of potential for abuse or degradation of women who might want to abort.  It's possible, but given the cost of the equipment and procedure as well as current legal precedent I don't think it's very likely.

 

As far as human testing it's surprising what they can manage at research hospitals in terms of procedures.  It's a much lower threshold for trial and use than a mass marketed prescription drug.  If you can get written consent from the family there's a lot of leeway in an academic medical setting, in my understanding, so I wouldn't be surprised to see this being tried three or five years from now.  One can hope, anyway!  If a baby is in dire straights regardless, especially with the current ventilator technology, justifying an experimental procedure that is likely to have a similar or better outcome is t a big sell.

 

We are just lucky that our immaturity issues were due to the IUGR and not prematurity, per se.  Despite the neurological immaturity and vascular immaturity we were only at moderate risk for brain bleeds and such, and his lungs weren't stressed by ventilation.  But we were an exception in the nicu - nearly every other bed was occupied by a baby with prematurity, not an illness or injury like us.

 

I swear I could write a book or three about the empathy I gained from this whole situation.  It's revelatory every week.  And it's even challenging my long held views on things like medical intervention, DNRs, insurance markets and social safety nets.  And strengthening my views on the issues of life, human dignity, personhood, ability, etc.  

 

The sleep deprivation might be making me loopy but I think my responses on here have been mostly coherent :o

Edited April 28, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[unsinkable]

I just want to throw in there that the Catholic church is 100% fine with abortion to save the life of the mother.  They're even fine with it when they are not certain the mother's life is in danger but only suspect it is, as in when they suspect a pregnancy is ectopic despite not being able to find the embryo in imaging scans.

 

I may not be Catholic but I have repeatedly worked with these cases in Catholic hospitals.

 

 

This is false. The RCC teaches that direct abortion is always wrong. Medical procedures whose purpose is to end the baby's life are not permitted. Treating the mother to save her her life is permitted even if the result is the death of the baby.

 

 

Check my statement again.  I said to save the life of the mother or when it is likely to save the life of the mother.  You're arguing about nothing, and frankly unless you've been the person to call in the priest to talk to a sobbing woman who'd prayed to get pregnant for years and is now pregnant but that pregnancy may kill her, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

 

I'm not arguing about nothing. Your statements about the RCC are not correct. The concept is called the Principle of Double Effect and your statements are wrong.

[Guest]

Looks like time to take this to PM.