| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Steenkin Man" |
| Date: |
28 Jun 2004 05:16:28 PM |
| Object: |
Surgery hope for unborn babies |
Surgery hope for unborn babies
Doctors believe they may have come up with a safer way of operating on
babies while they are in the womb.
Surgeons in Germany have used minimally invasive techniques to treat
three unborn babies with suspected spina bifida.
The surgery involved making three tiny incisions into the womb and
inserting three thin tubes and a camera to help them to repair the
damaged spine.
Operating on unborn babies is notoriously difficult and only a few
surgeons around the world have tried it.
Surgeons in the United States have led the way. Their technique
involves opening the abdomen and womb of the pregnant woman by large
incisions in much the same way as a caesarean section.
However, this type of surgery is risky not least because it can cause
the woman to go into premature labour.
The German surgeons believe their technique reduces the risks of this
happening.
They tested their technique extensively on pregnant sheep before
trying it on humans.
But it has now been used successfully on three unborn babies.
All three were at risk of developing spina bifida. This occurs when
the bones of the spine fail to come together. This leaves key nerves
exposed.
If left untreated it can cause permanent damage, leading to paralysis.
In the UK, the established practice is to operate on the baby almost
immediately after birth and place a protective layer of tissue around
the spine.
This reduces the damage, although frequently it cannot prevent some
permanent disability.
"All children operated on showed only slight symptoms of lower limb
paralysis after delivery," said Dr Thomas Kohl, who carried out the
surgery.
He said doctors were now monitoring their progress.
"We will need to wait until these children are at least two years of
age to get an idea about the therapeutic value of the new operation,"
he said.
In the UK 18,000 people are known to suffer from spina bifida.
Approximately 1,000 pregnancies a year are affected, and in nine out
of 10 cases the pregnancy is terminated.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3053439.stm
--
num tibi mentireris?
.
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: Surgery hope for unborn babies |
28 Jun 2004 08:00:14 PM |
|
|
In article <2kbjluFfvmkU2@uni-berlin.de>, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
Surgery hope for unborn babies
Why are women with histories of mutliple births, miscarriages and these
congential and similar defects even trying to reproduce. The need for
these expensive and experimental surgies are based on the choices of
individuals and couples.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saint Flower Power" |
|
| Title: Re: Surgery hope for unborn babies |
29 Jun 2004 01:27:35 AM |
|
|
"Bob's Boyfriend" <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:together-C757AA.21002128062004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
In article <2kbjluFfvmkU2@uni-berlin.de>, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
Surgery hope for unborn babies
Why are women with histories of mutliple births, miscarriages and these
congential and similar defects even trying to reproduce. The need for
these expensive and experimental surgies are based on the choices of
individuals and couples.
=========================
And with all those unwanted children in Foster Care no less. Why don't they
simply adopt one already born? Oh wait,... there aren't any healthy while
male infants available. What about the disabled and mixed race kids? Older
kids? Hummm... looks like no one wants them but the anti-choicers will keep
coercing women to add more and more to the rolls.
FP.....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph P. Belk" |
|
| Title: Re: Surgery hope for unborn babies |
29 Jun 2004 06:52:24 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:27:35 -0500, "Saint Flower Power"
<LiberatedLadies@Freedom.com> wrote:
"Bob's Boyfriend" <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:together-C757AA.21002128062004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
In article <2kbjluFfvmkU2@uni-berlin.de>, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
Surgery hope for unborn babies
Why are women with histories of mutliple births, miscarriages and these
congential and similar defects even trying to reproduce. The need for
these expensive and experimental surgies are based on the choices of
individuals and couples.
=========================
And with all those unwanted children in Foster Care no less. Why don't they
simply adopt one already born? Oh wait,... there aren't any healthy while
male infants available. What about the disabled and mixed race kids? Older
kids? Hummm... looks like no one wants them but the anti-choicers will keep
coercing women to add more and more to the rolls.
Does it really please you to post something even more hateful than the
previous poster?
First, almost all of the babies killed in abortions are exactly the
healthy kids who would easily be adopted. And most mothers who do not
abort will keep their kids and make the sacrifices necessary to raise
them. May God bless all the mothers who choose life. Since pro-life
people are outstandingly more likely to be involved in special needs
adoption, foster care, and political action to reform adoption policy
in favor of the children's needs than you churlish pro-aborts, I think
we both know who is really selfish enough to leave a kid in foster
care, hmmm?
Much more to the point, institutional barriers to adoption frequently
keep kids in foster care who would easily be adopted if they could be
released for adoption. The state frequently ties the hands of those
who would reach out to the kids, for reasons both good and bad. Here
in America, one of the worst reasons, but still too common, is racial
prejudice in those who prevent adoptions when the race of the
prospective adoptive couple doesn't match the race of the child. This
racial discrimination is still a serious problem, even though many
jurisdictions have made it illegal.
You are worthless on the issues surrounding adoption if you have not
bothered to acquire real information about adoption and who is
adopting whom. Stop swallowing the anti-adoption propaganda of your
pro-abort crowd. If you want to be better than worthless, check out
some links and look at how you can help:
http://www.chask.org/birthparents.htm
http://adoption.com
http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/kuharski.html
http://www.christianliferesources.com/cgi-bin/dcisDisplay.pl?webpage&pageID=907
Look around. See who adopts. See who fights to make more adoptions
possible. Wade in and help make adoption the preferred option.
Joseph P. Belk
******************************************************
You are worthless on the issues surrounding adoption if you have not
bothered to acquire real information about adoption and who is
adopting whom. Stop swallowing the anti-adoption propaganda of your
pro-abort crowd. If you want to be better than worthless, check out
some links and look at how you can help:
http://www.chask.org/birthparents.htm
http://adoption.com
http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/kuharski.html
http://www.christianliferesources.com/cgi-bin/dcisDisplay.pl?webpage&pageID=907
Look around. See who adopts. See who fights to make more adoptions
possible. Wade in and help make adoption the preferred option.
******************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mother Flower Power" |
|
| Title: Re: Surgery hope for unborn babies |
29 Jun 2004 03:44:12 PM |
|
|
"Joseph P. Belk" <jpbelk@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:bti2e0l4i3mjlfqvpv959os7vdpae7qc70@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:27:35 -0500, "Saint Flower Power"
<LiberatedLadies@Freedom.com> wrote:
"Bob's Boyfriend" <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:together-C757AA.21002128062004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
In article <2kbjluFfvmkU2@uni-berlin.de>, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
Surgery hope for unborn babies
Why are women with histories of mutliple births, miscarriages and these
congential and similar defects even trying to reproduce. The need for
these expensive and experimental surgies are based on the choices of
individuals and couples.
=========================
And with all those unwanted children in Foster Care no less. Why don't
they
simply adopt one already born? Oh wait,... there aren't any healthy
while
male infants available. What about the disabled and mixed race kids?
Older
kids? Hummm... looks like no one wants them but the anti-choicers will
keep
coercing women to add more and more to the rolls.
============================================
Does it really please you to post something even more hateful than the
previous poster?
$$ It's HATEFUL to expect those who would force women to have unwanted
children to then HELP these children? Since when? If THEY want them born
then they should put their money where their mouth is. You're the HATEFUL
one to even suggest they abandon the children they would force/coerce women
to bear.
First, almost all of the babies killed in abortions are exactly the
healthy kids who would easily be adopted.
$$ Since when are ALMOST ALL abortions done selectively on *healthy, white
male fetuses?* Most are done so early in pregnancy the women has no idea
what sex the zygote/fetus is.
And most mothers who do not
abort will keep their kids and make the sacrifices necessary to raise
them.
$$ Since when? Many do keep them, and many of these unwilling mothers
abuse, neglect and resent them. MOST unwanted infants end up in state
custody if some relative doesn't come forward and offer to take them. Why
aren't the fathers taking them to raise? Where do you think all the
unwanted children on the Foster Care rolls come from? Mars?
May God bless all the mothers who choose life.
$$ May you god use his BRAIN and stop sending unwanted children to unwilling
women.
Since pro-life
people are outstandingly more likely to be involved in special needs
adoption, foster care, and political action to reform adoption policy
in favor of the children's needs than you churlish pro-aborts, I think
we both know who is really selfish enough to leave a kid in foster
care, hmmm?
$$ Hummmm.... Yes, those anti-choicers who quickly abandon the unwanted
infant the day it's born. How selfish of them. If the anti-choicers (about
35 to 40% of the population I understand) were so concerned about these
special-needs kids the FC system wouldn't be overrun with them and non-white
children.
Much more to the point, institutional barriers to adoption frequently
keep kids in foster care who would easily be adopted if they could be
released for adoption. The state frequently ties the hands of those
who would reach out to the kids, for reasons both good and bad. Here
in America, one of the worst reasons, but still too common, is racial
prejudice in those who prevent adoptions when the race of the
prospective adoptive couple doesn't match the race of the child. This
racial discrimination is still a serious problem, even though many
jurisdictions have made it illegal.
$$ This is high in bull manure. No one stops WHITE couples from adopting
mixed race children. Many of which may be light skinned although having
very dark eyes and hair. I have known several white couples who adopted
mixed race children, simply because they loved and wanted kids. Yes, some in
foster care are not available - but where are all those anti-choicers for
the mixed-race infants women do release for adoption?
You are worthless on the issues surrounding adoption if you have not
bothered to acquire real information about adoption and who is
adopting whom.
$$ Do tell us - are all the NON-WHITE children released for adoption being
adopted where you live? Not in my area. There simply aren't enough
minority couples out there looking to adopt.
Stop swallowing the anti-adoption propaganda of your
pro-abort crowd. If you want to be better than worthless, check out
some links and look at how you can help:
$$ Uh, excuse me.... don't talk down to people in your fruitless attempt to
coerce women to bear fetuses they do not want and who could possibly destroy
their lives.....
--
Flower Power........
One women dies giving birth every 30 minutes in Afghanistan.
Do they also warn women of the dangers of term pregnancy and
birth?.......like:
http://www.indiaparenting.com/pregnancy/data/preg16_00.shtml
http://www.imnotsorry.net/
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 11 times as high as
that associated with abortion.27
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00054602.htm
http://www.afterabortion.org/news/deaths_smj.html
====================================================
====================================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Surgery hope for unborn babies |
29 Jun 2004 08:29:18 AM |
|
|
"Joseph P. Belk" wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:27:35 -0500, "Saint Flower Power"
<LiberatedLadies@Freedom.com> wrote:
"Bob's Boyfriend" <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:together-C757AA.21002128062004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
In article <2kbjluFfvmkU2@uni-berlin.de>, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
Surgery hope for unborn babies
Why are women with histories of mutliple births, miscarriages and these
congential and similar defects even trying to reproduce. The need for
these expensive and experimental surgies are based on the choices of
individuals and couples.
=========================
And with all those unwanted children in Foster Care no less. Why don't they
simply adopt one already born? Oh wait,... there aren't any healthy while
male infants available. What about the disabled and mixed race kids? Older
kids? Hummm... looks like no one wants them but the anti-choicers will keep
coercing women to add more and more to the rolls.
Does it really please you to post something even more hateful than the
previous poster?
First, almost all of the babies killed in abortions are exactly the
healthy kids who would easily be adopted.
Yet there are many kids exactly like that sitting in the adoption
centers and foster homes just waiting for that statement to prove true.
And most mothers who do not
abort will keep their kids and make the sacrifices necessary to raise
them. May God bless all the mothers who choose life. Since pro-life
people are outstandingly more likely to be involved in special needs
adoption, foster care, and political action to reform adoption policy
in favor of the children's needs than you churlish pro-aborts, I think
we both know who is really selfish enough to leave a kid in foster
care, hmmm?
The pro-lifers who refuse to adopt and/or finance them
Much more to the point, institutional barriers to adoption frequently
keep kids in foster care who would easily be adopted if they could be
released for adoption. The state frequently ties the hands of those
who would reach out to the kids, for reasons both good and bad. Here
in America, one of the worst reasons, but still too common, is racial
prejudice in those who prevent adoptions when the race of the
prospective adoptive couple doesn't match the race of the child. This
racial discrimination is still a serious problem, even though many
jurisdictions have made it illegal.
You are worthless on the issues surrounding adoption if you have not
bothered to acquire real information about adoption and who is
adopting whom. Stop swallowing the anti-adoption propaganda of your
pro-abort crowd. If you want to be better than worthless, check out
some links and look at how you can help:
http://www.chask.org/birthparents.htm
http://adoption.com
http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/kuharski.html
http://www.christianliferesources.com/cgi-bin/dcisDisplay.pl?webpage&pageID=907
Look around. See who adopts. See who fights to make more adoptions
possible. Wade in and help make adoption the preferred option.
And if just 1 in 500 of those who claim they are willing to adopt
actually did so, the total population of children in foster care would
be zero.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mother Flower Power" |
|
| Title: Re: Surgery hope for unborn babies |
29 Jun 2004 03:57:29 PM |
|
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:40E16ED1.B4924F77@citlink.net...
"Joseph P. Belk" wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:27:35 -0500, "Saint Flower Power"
<LiberatedLadies@Freedom.com> wrote:
"Bob's Boyfriend" <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:together-C757AA.21002128062004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
In article <2kbjluFfvmkU2@uni-berlin.de>, Steenkin Man
<me@privacy.net>
wrote:
Surgery hope for unborn babies
Why are women with histories of mutliple births, miscarriages and
these
congential and similar defects even trying to reproduce. The need for
these expensive and experimental surgies are based on the choices of
individuals and couples.
=========================
And with all those unwanted children in Foster Care no less. Why don't
they
simply adopt one already born? Oh wait,... there aren't any healthy
while
male infants available. What about the disabled and mixed race kids?
Older
kids? Hummm... looks like no one wants them but the anti-choicers will
keep
coercing women to add more and more to the rolls.
Does it really please you to post something even more hateful than the
previous poster?
First, almost all of the babies killed in abortions are exactly the
healthy kids who would easily be adopted.
Yet there are many kids exactly like that sitting in the adoption
centers and foster homes just waiting for that statement to prove true.
$$ The anti-choicers don't want to hear this. The first choice of couples
looking to adopt are healthy white male INFANTS, then white female
INFANTS.... few are willing to take mixed race or dark skinned INFANTS.
Note that they're particular yet and want INFANTS, healthy INFANTS. No one
denies there are a few out there who would consider a handicapped, mixed
race or older child - but they are rare.
And most mothers who do not
abort will keep their kids and make the sacrifices necessary to raise
them. May God bless all the mothers who choose life. Since pro-life
people are outstandingly more likely to be involved in special needs
adoption, foster care, and political action to reform adoption policy
in favor of the children's needs than you churlish pro-aborts, I think
we both know who is really selfish enough to leave a kid in foster
care, hmmm?
The pro-lifers who refuse to adopt and/or finance them
$$ Exactly! They coerce the women or teenager to bear these children - then
quickly abandon them.
Look around. See who adopts. See who fights to make more adoptions
possible. Wade in and help make adoption the preferred option.
$$ How does THAT help the women or girl who wants to abort so she can get on
with her life? It doesn't. Why manipulate her to go through it just to add
another unwanted child to the "system?" Few of us have the financial means
to cover her medical costs or living expenses when she loses her job or
home..... or has complications, especially long term ones. Why have her put
her life, her health and her future at risk to please the anti-choicers? It
makes no sense.
And if just 1 in 500 of those who claim they are willing to adopt
actually did so, the total population of children in foster care would
be zero.
$$ Try and convince the anti-choicers of that!
--
Flower Power........
One women dies giving birth every 30 minutes in Afghanistan.
The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 11 times as high as
that associated with abortion.27
====================================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steenkin Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Surgery hope for unborn babies |
29 Jun 2004 08:11:41 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:00:14 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:
In article <2kbjluFfvmkU2@uni-berlin.de>, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
Surgery hope for unborn babies
Why are women with histories of mutliple births, miscarriages and these
congential and similar defects even trying to reproduce. The need for
these expensive and experimental surgies are based on the choices of
individuals and couples.
Most females surveyed have said that, given the choice, they would
prefer their children to be straight rather than homosexual.
If you managed to convince most women that abortion is fine (I don't
think you can) and a "gay gene" was discovered (I don't think it will
be), then just think about all the babies that would be killed in the
womb because of their sexuality.
You might not be here.
--
num tibi mentireris?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Surgery hope for unborn babies |
29 Jun 2004 02:19:49 PM |
|
|
"Steenkin Man" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2kd84gFqshuU1@uni-berlin.de...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:00:14 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:
In article <2kbjluFfvmkU2@uni-berlin.de>, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
Surgery hope for unborn babies
Why are women with histories of mutliple births, miscarriages and these
congential and similar defects even trying to reproduce. The need for
these expensive and experimental surgies are based on the choices of
individuals and couples.
Most females surveyed have said that, given the choice, they would
prefer their children to be straight rather than homosexual.
Well, Duh.
What mother wouldn't prefer that their child not be subjected to
discrimination and bigotry?
If you managed to convince most women that abortion is fine (I don't
think you can) and a "gay gene" was discovered (I don't think it will
be),
You base this statement on what, exactly?
then just think about all the babies that would be killed in the
womb because of their sexuality.
You might not be here.
--
num tibi mentireris?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph P. Belk" |
|
| Title: Re: Surgery hope for unborn babies |
29 Jun 2004 05:58:03 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:00:14 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:
In article <2kbjluFfvmkU2@uni-berlin.de>, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
Surgery hope for unborn babies
Why are women with histories of mutliple births, miscarriages and these
congential and similar defects even trying to reproduce. The need for
these expensive and experimental surgies are based on the choices of
individuals and couples.
Then you would be a proponent of eugenics, asking society to require
licenses to reproduce and denying those licenses to those who don't
"measure up"? How then are you different from a Nazi eugenicist?
Or perhaps you are merely uninformed. Spina Bifida, in particular, is
unlikely to show up in subsequent children. The condition can be
prevented in many women at risk for it by adequate nutrition
throughout pregnancy (folic acid is a key nutrient). One key
consideration in any proposed policy is whether the underlying problem
is truly addressed. Killing babies who otherwise would need surgery is
not an acceptable alternative to civilized people. Neither is forcible
sterilization. The status quo has the advantage that much incentive
remains to continue research into cure and prevention.
The truth is, every woman has a right to reproduce, because every
human life from conception onward is intrinsically good and valuable
to everyone. Now some women might also choose not to reproduce for
sound reasons, and for the same reasons those women may either avoid
sex altogether or avoid sex when they are fertile. These fundamental
human rights supersede any interest you have in the wisdom of others'
reproductive choices. Let's focus on how to welcome all children when
they are conceived and how to make provision for their needs,
including the needs of those born into difficult medical
circumstances.
Just ask, for instance, any person who has spina bifida, whether he or
she agrees that spina bifida victims are better off killed before
birth. Do you suppose the answer would be important in determining
public policy toward the diagnosis of spina bifida before birth? The
British government doesn't seem to think so. They go to great lengths
to protect the rights of citizens with spina bifida starting at birth,
but also spend a lot of public health dollars seeking out the unborn
children of citizens who might be born with spina bifida and
encouraging parents to have these children killed before birth. Given
the existence of the second policy, do you trust the British
government to have at heart the rights of citizens with spina bifida
after their births? I don't think the British citizens with spina
bifida feel much trust in government. I wouldn't, in such a place.
Joseph P. Belk
Joseph P. Belk
----------------------------------------------------
"No one has the right to choose what is wrong."
-Abraham Lincoln
----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: Surgery hope for unborn babies |
29 Jun 2004 03:48:51 PM |
|
|
In article <fkg2e0hl9f2213rf7a6t2k33d2spm6f58o@4ax.com>,
Joseph P. Belk <jpbelk@fuse.net> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:00:14 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:
In article <2kbjluFfvmkU2@uni-berlin.de>, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
Surgery hope for unborn babies
Why are women with histories of mutliple births, miscarriages and these
congential and similar defects even trying to reproduce. The need for
these expensive and experimental surgies are based on the choices of
individuals and couples.
Then you would be a proponent of eugenics, asking society to require
licenses to reproduce and denying those licenses to those who don't
"measure up"? How then are you different from a Nazi eugenicist?
How you would label it, is a matter of choice. I have merely applied the
same logic that prolife applies to prevent abortions. The premise seems
to be, since we know the outcome of our behaviours that we should
consider other options and look at our behaviour. For example, if sex
can lead to pregnancy consider birth control, absitience, and so on.
I apply the same rationale here. I'm suggesting that where couples know
that there actions have a degree of probablity to result in deformed
children, congenital defects, etc. that they look to other options --
adoption would be one.
I suggest that before inflict such damage onto a child and the burden
onto to society that couples rethink their choices or accept for
accountability for the choices that THEY made.
Or perhaps you are merely uninformed. Spina Bifida, in particular, is
unlikely to show up in subsequent children. The condition can be
prevented in many women at risk for it by adequate nutrition
throughout pregnancy (folic acid is a key nutrient).
Which suggests that women need to be charged with negliegnece causing
injurty to a fetus or child. And if men want equal rights, the failure
to help supply a few folic tablets each month would also make them
accomplices as they too would have a co-responsibility as the parent.
One key
consideration in any proposed policy is whether the underlying problem
is truly addressed. Killing babies who otherwise would need surgery is
not an acceptable alternative to civilized people. Neither is forcible
sterilization. The status quo has the advantage that much incentive
remains to continue research into cure and prevention.
Who said anything about killing or sterilization. It's a simple choice
to avoid sex and conception, no?
The truth is, every woman has a right to reproduce,
And she also has the right NOT to reproduce?
because every
human life from conception onward is intrinsically good and valuable
to everyone. Now some women might also choose not to reproduce for
sound reasons, and for the same reasons those women may either avoid
sex altogether or avoid sex when they are fertile. These fundamental
human rights supersede any interest you have in the wisdom of others'
reproductive choices. Let's focus on how to welcome all children when
they are conceived and how to make provision for their needs,
including the needs of those born into difficult medical
circumstances.
I disagree. Let's avoid many of those pregnancies all together.
Just ask, for instance, any person who has spina bifida, whether he or
she agrees that spina bifida victims are better off killed before
birth.
Who said kill anything. I merely suggest that many of these pregnancies
can be avoided rather than wasting vast human resources on treatment --
I'm taking the perspective of prevention.
Do you suppose the answer would be important in determining
public policy toward the diagnosis of spina bifida before birth? The
British government doesn't seem to think so. They go to great lengths
to protect the rights of citizens with spina bifida starting at birth,
but also spend a lot of public health dollars seeking out the unborn
children of citizens who might be born with spina bifida and
encouraging parents to have these children killed before birth. Given
the existence of the second policy, do you trust the British
government to have at heart the rights of citizens with spina bifida
after their births? I don't think the British citizens with spina
bifida feel much trust in government. I wouldn't, in such a place.
Why the British government is paying for what one person, or couple
chose to do with such a simple remedy as folic acide is ludicrous.
Babies are born INTO spina bifida, they are created throught ignorance,
poverty and other probelms that are the responsibility of specific
individuals.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Surgery hope for unborn babies |
30 Jun 2004 12:19:49 AM |
|
|
Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Surgery hope for unborn babies
Doctors believe they may have come up with a safer way of operating on
babies while they are in the womb.
"Woman? What woman?"
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
