The abortion problem

This is a touching story, but I would have to take exception to the comment about "dreadful limits" to medical knowledge. The doctors were presented with a case where history would, more often then not, tell you that to take no action would result in the deaths of both children. That’s the disadvantage of actually having to work with flesh and blood - the outcomes are not always going to match what the textbook, or case history says.
Now, for the fun part - what does this story demand in terms of policy? To we insist that doctors do nothing, or resort to heroic measures? From my perspective, this is actually a good example of the choice in a situation like this to be left between doctor and patient, only because I'm sure that there are also plenty of examples out there of case history where inaction resulted in the deaths of both babies. The maddening part of trying to set "policy" is that the uncertainty principle here almost dictates that in any given situation there could never be an outcome pleasing to all parties.
Cheers....Phil

But for every case of an offer of a medically needed abortion rejected where the baby lived, there are inevitably others where catastrophic consequences occurred for mother or child. This case has gained international attention:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2038739,00.html

And these are just the cases where the mother believes abortion is deeply wrong but nevertheless may have exceedingly strong medical reasons to go against that.

What about the fact that many people (to be blunt) don't share your religious/moral belief in the ultimate evil of abortion?

It should be kept in mind that much of the "abortion" debate revolves around the question of when life begins. Most supporters of choice do not believe life begins at conception.

For fair comparison, I'm not seeing the tragic stories of the sixtuplets or septuplets of which three, four, five, or even all die shortly after delivery because the mother refused to abort any. In that case, the excuse given for the outcome is usually the cop-out of "it was God's will".

These particular miracle stories sadly root in a formal theology of fetishism, I'm sorry to say. Strip out the slants or appeals to that belief, to selfexcusing supernaturally ordained weakness and the magical object that overcomes it, and they are pragmatic, deeply melancholy, human stories.

Individually, abortion of course will remain as ever a personal dilemma for most. Collectively, national support for a complete ban on abortions has dropped so far that it has no realistic prospects. In 10-15 years, when the preBoomers have left us, it may well be an issue roughly on par with prohibitions on interracial marriage.

Let's try that link one more time....

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/11/01/vietnam/index.html

Either I was very tired when I wrote the last posting or it was censored. Consequently, the first sentence doesn't make sense. I'll try this again, without any direct reference to inf*****ide, and hope that it makes it through. My point was that we currently prohibit killing of a human being subsequent to birth, even though we have not resolved the question of whether or not life begins at conception. We are able to do this, because we agree that life has begun by the time of birth, even though we are not in agreement on precisely when life begins. Democracy is about finding points of agreement, regardless of what differences may remain. Therefore, surgical abortions must be debated separately from the morning after pill. It is not necessary to determine whether or not life begins at conception in order to arrive at a consensus against surgical abortions.