Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion
Comments
-
The Corinthian wrote: »Ultimately you're still valuing their lives.
No.The Corinthian wrote: »Pat offered one criteria; that the woman in his example was already caring for other offspring. This meant that her death would result in those other offspring also suffering.
So the criteria is if she is already a mother? Seems rather arbitrary.The Corinthian wrote: »Actually, they're utilitarian - quite the opposite of an emotional assessment.
You'd have to prove the means of assessment is practical and utilitarian, which so far it based on what you have said, it seems ridiculous.0 -
Well, that settles it then.zeffabelli wrote: »No.
No actually. The criteria, which I thought was clear, was that she had dependents who relied upon her.So the criteria is if she is already a mother? Seems rather arbitrary.
So someone who has others who are dependent on her and would suffer were she to be gone, versus someone who has no dependents, is not a utilitarian assessment? Maybe you should follow that link I supplied as you don't appear to understand the term.You'd have to prove the means of assessment is practical and utilitarian, which so far it based on what you have said, it seems ridiculous.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Well, that settles it then.
No actually. The criteria, which I thought was clear, was that she had dependents who relied upon her.
So someone who has others who are dependent on her and would suffer were she to be gone, versus someone who has no dependents, is not a utilitarian assessment? Maybe you should follow that link I supplied as you don't appear to understand the term.
Everyone has dependants in one way or another, unless they are hermits.0 -
Really, how many dependents does your typical five-year old have? Or by "one way or another" did you mean dependents as only you define them?zeffabelli wrote: »Everyone has dependants in one way or another, unless they are hermits.
You're grasping at this stage.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Really, how many dependents does your typical five-year old have? Or by "one way or another" did you mean dependents as only you define them?
You're grasping at this stage.
Ah yeah.
Ok so in a life or death context, and abortion can proceed if the woman has other children who are dependant on her. That rules out non custodial mothers I assume.
But the question was originally about what criteria do you assess the life of the actual mother over the potential life of the foetus.
How do you assess potential life of one vs the actual life of the other...regardless of dependents.
It's not feasible and is as silly, perhaps more so because it is pretending to be rational, than warm fuzzy feelings.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not sure you have fully grasped what I wrote - in fact, when I repeated it I specifically cited that "she had dependents" rather than use the term "mother". She might have no children, but have an elderly relative or a younger sibling who are dependent. So your question about non custodial mothers has already been answered.zeffabelli wrote: »Ok so in a life or death context, and abortion can proceed if the woman has other children who are dependant on her. That rules out non custodial mothers I assume.
Yes and the method suggested by Pat was to do so via comparative value or utility.But the question was originally about what criteria do you assess the life of the actual mother over the potential life of the foetus.
Again I don't think you seem to understand what is being assessed. No one is assessing any life per say, but their utility and from that which one will cost more to lose.How do you assess potential life of one vs the actual life of the other...regardless of dependents.
It's quite rational, although it may not be moral. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense - and it is quite clear that from your rebuttals, you don't actually understand it.It's not feasible and is as silly, perhaps more so because it is pretending to be rational, than warm fuzzy feelings.0 -
This is reducing a woman to a value, she gets the abortion if she has a value to others, her dependents. That's a really horrible way to view a woman tbh.0
-
The Corinthian wrote: »I'm not sure you have fully grasped what I wrote - in fact, when I repeated it I specifically cited that "she had dependents" rather than use the term "mother". She might have no children, but have an elderly relative or a younger sibling who are dependent. So your question about non custodial mothers has already been answered.
Yes and the method suggested by Pat was to do so via comparative value or utility.
Again I don't think you seem to understand what is being assessed. No one is assessing any life per say, but their utility and from that which one will cost more to lose.
It's quite rational, although it may not be moral. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense - and it is quite clear that from your rebuttals, you don't actually understand it.
You have not mapped out the criteria on which to base this "utility."
Nor have you explained how you measure "potential" ulility- so you are basing it on speculative fantasy. Hardly rational.
It also reduces the woman to having no value outside of her dependents. If having dependents is the "criteria" on which to value human life, a foetus hardly meets that criteria.....0 -
-
Of course it is. But the discussion presently is working off the presumption that the unborn is a person, but that this does not necessarily mean it has an absolute right to life. In such a scenario, how is it moral to have a termination (or not)? Comparing the value of one person against the other is one means suggested by one poster. I proffered another.This is reducing a woman to a value, she gets the abortion if she has a value to others, her dependents. That's a really horrible way to view a woman tbh.
Again, read up what utility is.zeffabelli wrote: »You have not mapped out the criteria on which to base this "utility."
What do you think actuaries do for a living? Seriously, why are you repeatedly attempting to rebut arguments from the position of "I don't know anything about this, ergo it must be wrong"?Nor have you explained how you measure "potential" ulility- so you are basing it on speculative fantasy. Hardly rational.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
The Corinthian wrote: »
What do you think actuaries do for a living? Seriously, why are you repeatedly attempting to rebut arguments from the position of "I don't know anything about this, ergo it must be wrong"?
We are not talking about actuaries. Why do you keep making inappropriate analogies?
If your criteria is dependancy, then a foetus hardly meets that. So according to your own criteria of "having dependents," a feotus wont meet that anyhow.
Outside of "having dependants," what is your criteria?
I can't see how you criteria is any more worthwhile than mushy wushy fuzzy feelings. It's no more than "because I said so."0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Of course it is. But the discussion presently is working off the presumption that the unborn is a person, but that this does not necessarily mean it has an absolute right to life. In such a scenario, how is it moral to have a termination (or not)? Comparing the value of one person against the other is one means suggested by one poster. I proffered another.
Again, read up what utility is.
What do you think actuaries do for a living? Seriously, why are you repeatedly attempting to rebut arguments from the position of "I don't know anything about this, ergo it must be wrong"?
Its a horrible way to view people. Imagine the health care system worked on that basis, person A got a new heart because he was married and had a few kids but person B gets put to the bottom of the list because he's single.0 -
Its a horrible way to view people. Imagine the health care system worked on that basis, person A got a new heart because he was married and had a few kids but person B gets put to the bottom of the list because he's single.
It's ridiculous. It's science fiction frankly. It would also put all children at the bottom of the list too as they tend not to have dependents. How this is rationalised along side of prioritising a feotus is beyond me, and yes corinthian is right in that regard, I do not understand that reconciliation.
Medicine works on the medical needs of individuals and prioritise according to the need of the body.0 -
This is reducing a woman to a value, she gets the abortion if she has a value to others, her dependents. That's a really horrible way to view a woman tbh.
It's not about denigrating anybody.
We are trying to move away from emotion-based arguments such as stating that something is 'horrible', in an attempt to understand when should abortion be allowed, on objective premises.
Ascribing a value on human life may seem abhorrent but it is based on what happens in reality. There isn't enough money for hip replacements for all of the people who need them, so the government tells some people that they can have them and others that they can't. In order to make this more palatable, the government uses the concept of a waiting list. It's not because there are more hip patients than doctors. It's because the government won't pay for treatment. It won't tell you that you won't get treatment. It'll just pay for X amount of hips per year, is all. Everybody else is allowed to suffer.
Surely that's horrible? Nobody does anything about it though. It is accepted.
Other patients are on waiting lists for cancer treatment and they die before they receive treatment.
People might agree that this is horrible but they accept it.
The fact is that value judgements are being made about people every day by bureaucrats, politicians and insurance companies and nobody does anything about it. If somebody has health insurance they will be treated. Hospitals will treat somebody who has insurance and not treat somebody who has no insurance.
If we accept that people place some lives over others every day, and if we want to understand this process, it that horrible?
Surely it is better to attempt to understand the process and to see if the fairest system can be arrived at by objective and rational standards, than to pretend that the valuation of human life does not exist?0 -
Pat Mustard wrote: »It's not about denigrating anybody.
We are trying to move away from emotion-based arguments such as stating that something is 'horrible', in an attempt to understand when should abortion be allowed, on objective premises.
Ascribing a value on human life may seem abhorrent but it is based on what happens in reality. There isn't enough money for hip replacements for all of the people who need them, so the government tells some people that they can have them and others that they can't. In order to make this more palatable, the government uses the concept of a waiting list. It's not because there are more hip patients than doctors. It's because the government won't pay for treatment. It won't tell you that you won't get treatment. It'll just pay for X amount of hips per year, is all. Everybody else is allowed to suffer.
Surely that's horrible? Nobody does anything about it though. It is accepted.
Other patients are on waiting lists for cancer treatment and they die before they receive treatment.
People might agree that this is horrible but they accept it.
The fact is that value judgements are being made about people every day by bureaucrats, politicians and insurance companies and nobody does anything about it. If somebody has health insurance they will be treated. Hospitals will treat somebody who has insurance and not treat somebody who has no insurance.
If we accept that people place some lives over others every day, and if we want to understand this process, it that horrible?
Surely it is better to attempt to understand the process and to see if the fairest system can be arrived at by objective and rational standards, than to pretend that the valuation of human life does not exist?
Medical decisions aren't made on a basis of the value of a person, its done on medical need. If A needs the treatment more than B then A gets it. And in a system where there is not enough help for all then its the fairest way to do it.
Most abortions are not done for medical reasons. In a medical situation - and I would include the mental health of the mother in that - it shouldn't even be open to debate, she should be allowed treatment without having to prove her case. If you start looking at her in terms of her usefulness to the people around her that reduces her to a thing imo, it takes away her own needs and puts them second to those of her family. As a woman I find it distasteful that my opinion would take second place to the needs of my husband and kids.0 -
Pat Mustard wrote: »It's not about denigrating anybody.
We are trying to move away from emotion-based arguments such as stating that something is 'horrible', in an attempt to understand when should abortion be allowed, on objective premises.
Ascribing a value on human life may seem abhorrent but it is based on what happens in reality. There isn't enough money for hip replacements for all of the people who need them, so the government tells some people that they can have them and others that they can't. In order to make this more palatable, the government uses the concept of a waiting list. It's not because there are more hip patients than doctors. It's because the government won't pay for treatment. It won't tell you that you won't get treatment. It'll just pay for X amount of hips per year, is all. Everybody else is allowed to suffer.
Surely that's horrible? Nobody does anything about it though. It is accepted.
Other patients are on waiting lists for cancer treatment and they die before they receive treatment.
People might agree that this is horrible but they accept it.
The fact is that value judgements are being made about people every day by bureaucrats, politicians and insurance companies and nobody does anything about it. If somebody has health insurance they will be treated. Hospitals will treat somebody who has insurance and not treat somebody who has no insurance.
If we accept that people place some lives over others every day, and if we want to understand this process, it that horrible?
Surely it is better to attempt to understand the process and to see if the fairest system can be arrived at by objective and rational standards, than to pretend that the valuation of human life does not exist?
Is a hip replacement a life or death choice?
Hospitals have to treat you in A & E. They don't get to choose. They can choose however where to put you in the queue. And there are medical negligence laws in place there also. Even if you are admitted via GP, they still have to treat you, they can't turn you away due to insurance. They can still sue the bejessus out of you, but they can't refuse treatment.
The value judgements you cite here are based on who is in the queue first.
How is this germane to a discussion on abortion and the termination of life?0 -
Because actuaries do make valuations on people's potential value - the very thing you claim cannot be done.zeffabelli wrote: »We are not talking about actuaries. Why do you keep making inappropriate analogies?
That was one example, given by Pat. Maybe one could expand on this, maybe not. Either way, using this value system may ultimately be a dead end.If your criteria is dependancy, then a foetus hardly meets that. So according to your own criteria of "having dependents," a feotus wont meet that anyhow.
Do we need other criteria? If not, why not?Outside of "having dependants," what is your criteria?
Because those criteria have actual consequences. Mushy wushy fuzzy feelings have none.I can't see how you criteria is any more worthwhile than mushy wushy fuzzy feelings. It's no more than "because I said so."
If you can offer a better counterargument than 'horrible' then I'll take it more seriously. My understanding is that the standard of this forum is a bit higher than a vox pop. If I'm wrong on that, then I'll bow out, as I'm not terribly interested in having a chat about feelings.Its a horrible way to view people.
Actually the health care system is already quite ruthless in how it assesses who will receive treatment or not, and by extension who lives and who does not. The criteria may differ, but no less 'horrible'.Imagine the health care system worked on that basis, person A got a new heart because he was married and had a few kids but person B gets put to the bottom of the list because he's single.
Then don't call it science fiction, when it's simply because you don't understand it. Since when did ignorance become a cogent argument?zeffabelli wrote: »It's ridiculous. It's science fiction frankly. It would also put all children at the bottom of the list too as they tend not to have dependents. How this is rationalised along side of prioritising a feotus is beyond me, and yes corinthian is right in that regard, I do not understand that reconciliation.
You do know that it doesn't actually work like that?Medicine works on the medical needs of individuals and prioritise according to the need of the body.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »If you can offer a better counterargument than 'horrible' then I'll take it more seriously. My understanding is that the standard of this forum is a bit higher than a vox pop. If I'm wrong on that, then I'll bow out, as I'm not terribly interested in having a chat about feelings.
As a woman who has been in this position it is a horrible feeling and extremely offensive and distasteful that some posters here think my wants and needs are not important and that ultimately my usefulness to my husband and kids should decide what medical treatment I am allowed to access. Its all moot, if that were the case and I was refused I'd just do what everyone else does, travel to the UK or take matters into my own hands.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Because actuaries do make valuations on people's potential value - the very thing you claim cannot be done.
That was one example, given by Pat. Maybe one could expand on this, maybe not. Either way, using this value system may ultimately be a dead end.
Do we need other criteria? If not, why not?
Because those criteria have actual consequences. Mushy wushy fuzzy feelings have none.
If you can offer a better counterargument than 'horrible' then I'll take it more seriously. My understanding is that the standard of this forum is a bit higher than a vox pop. If I'm wrong on that, then I'll bow out, as I'm not terribly interested in having a chat about feelings.
Actually the health care system is already quite ruthless in how it assesses who will receive treatment or not, and by extension who lives and who does not. The criteria may differ, but no less 'horrible'.
Then don't call it science fiction, when it's simply because you don't understand it. Since when did ignorance become a cogent argument?
You do know that it doesn't actually work like that?
Mushy wushy feelings do have consequences. They are often what led to the conception of a baby in the first place.
Your argument is entirely irrational posing as reason and calling it utilitarianism doesn't make it any less useless.
You still have no offerred any criteria outside of having dependents, of which a feotus has none. So even within your own criteria a feotus doesn't have a leg to stand on, forgive the metaphor.
Acturies make estimates on potential financial value. Is that what you are suggesting here? Bring in actuaries into the hospital and have them estimate the potential financial value of a feotus?
If you are not measuring potential financial value, what values are you measuring and how?0 -
Advertisement
-
As a woman who has been in this position it is a horrible feeling and extremely offensive and distasteful that some posters here think my wants and needs are not important and that ultimately my usefulness to my husband and kids should decide what medical treatment I am allowed to access. Its all moot, if that were the case and I was refused I'd just do what everyone else does, travel to the UK or take matters into my own hands.
I can well imagine a woman who has been through 3 sections might well feel the same.
It looks to me like we can't past the symphiotomy phase of obstetrics in this debate.0 -
Ergo any dispassionate discussion on the topic is taboo? Censored?As a woman who has been in this position it is a horrible feeling and extremely offensive and distasteful that some posters here think my wants and needs are not important and that ultimately my usefulness to my husband and kids should decide what medical treatment I am allowed to access. Its all moot, if that were the case and I was refused I'd just do what everyone else does, travel to the UK or take matters into my own hands.
Oh Christ. Do you seriously expect me to take this kind of argument seriously?zeffabelli wrote: »Mushy wushy feelings do have consequences. They are often what led to the conception of a baby in the first place.
You asked how such an assessment would work. I took the example from Pat and explained the logic behind it. It was not meant as a full system for judging whether abortion is moral or not, just as a means to explain the logic to you - in which I clearly failed.You still have no offerred any criteria outside of having dependents, of which a feotus has none.
Even that is logically flawed - even if a fetus never has dependents, that does not automatically imply it will come out on bottom in the assesment. Think about it, what other scenario might there be where this could be the case? Go on, think about it.So even within your own criteria a feotus doesn't have a leg to stand on, forgive the metaphor.
Actuaries can make estimates on anything if they have the data to work with. For the final time, if you don't know about something, don't start making judgments on it.Acturies make estimates on potential financial value. Is that what you are suggesting here? Bring in actuaries into the hospital and have them estimate the potential financial value of a feotus?0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Ergo any dispassionate discussion on the topic is taboo? Censored?
Oh Christ. Do you seriously expect me to take this kind of argument seriously?
You asked how such an assessment would work. I took the example from Pat and explained the logic behind it. It was not meant as a full system for judging whether abortion is moral or not, just as a means to explain the logic to you - in which I clearly failed.
Even that is logically flawed - even if a fetus never has dependents, that does not automatically imply it will come out on bottom in the assesment. Think about it, what other scenario might there be where this could be the case? Go on, think about it.
Actuaries can make estimates on anything if they have the data to work with. For the final time, if you don't know about something, don't start making judgments on it.
So are you suggesting actuaries decide this? What data will they use? Why that particular data? How is it derived and processed? Be specific. How does this apply to the criertia you still have not laid out yet. Still waiting for those values.
You explained the logic. I get it but it's irrational. It's no better than mushy wushu feelings.0 -
No I am not.zeffabelli wrote: »So are you suggesting actuaries decide this?
No, you didn't. You've repeatedly either misinterpreted or misunderstood basic concepts in this discussion. You somehow decided that being a mother was a criteria being used, when I made it clear what was the key in that criteria was dependency and not a familial relationship (no idea where you came up with that, TBH).You explained the logic. I get it but it's irrational. It's no better than mushy wushu feelings.
So no. I don't think you've followed much of the discussion. You appear too busy half reading then jumping to conclusions, especially on areas that you have very little knowledge on.
Best we just agree to disagree, because I'm not really interested in wasting more of my time.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »No I am not.
No, you didn't. You've repeatedly either misinterpreted or misunderstood basic concepts in this discussion. You somehow decided that being a mother was a criteria being used, when I made it clear what was the key in that criteria was dependency and not a familial relationship (no idea where you came up with that, TBH).
So no. I don't think you've followed much of the discussion. You appear too busy half reading then jumping to conclusions, especially on areas that you have very little knowledge on.
Best we just agree to disagree, because I'm not really interested in wasting more of my time.
Nope. I got all that. Asked you to clarify the values where there are no dependencies. You instead suggested employing actuaries, now bringing us somewhere between Phillip K Dick and Kafka.
So again, what are the values? How are the actuaries going to predict and decide?0 -
I think you're getting confused. You asked how one can even measure potentials and I pointed out actuaries do.zeffabelli wrote: »Nope. I got all that. Asked you to clarify the values where there are no dependencies. You instead suggested employing actuaries, now bringing us somewhere between Phillip K Dick and Kafka.
If there are no dependents, I think it not to difficult to figure out that the test would end up inconclusive and other tests would be needed. Actually, maybe not so easy, because you got that one wrong too earlier.
Please stop digging.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »I think you're getting confused. You asked how one can even measure potentials and I pointed out actuaries do.
I asked in THIS context.
Cheltenham horse trainers do too but they have nothing to do with this context.
Usually in discussion, things are context dependent.The Corinthian wrote: »I
If there are no dependents, I think it not to difficult to figure out that the test would end up inconclusive and other tests would be needed. Actually, maybe not so easy, because you got that one wrong too earlier.
Please stop digging.
You complain about others mushy wushy judgements calling them irrational, which they are.
How are you going to decide that an actual life is of less value than the potential of a feotus... even outside of dependencies? You are going to let the mother die, based on what exactly....
How is that any more rational than musy wushy feelings? It's just because you said so. It comes down to "because I feel like it."0 -
Actually you asked in this context:zeffabelli wrote: »I asked in THIS context.
And I pointed out how this is actually workable. The maths of calculating potential value is not new. As for giving you a fully worked out system, I've repeatedly said that I won't. I'm not even arguing for such a system, I'll I've done is explained the basic rationale behind it.zeffabelli wrote: »Evaluating a an adult woman's life compared to the potential of a foetus. If this is workable, explain how.
Indeed, at what point have I ever suggested that such a system is moral or workable? The most I've done is suggest that it's ultimately superior to the mob rule of emotive thinking.
You're jumping to lots of conclusions...0 -
zeffabelli wrote: »Is a hip replacement a life or death choice?
Hospitals have to treat you in A & E. They don't get to choose. They can choose however where to put you in the queue. And there are medical negligence laws in place there also. Even if you are admitted via GP, they still have to treat you, they can't turn you away due to insurance. They can still sue the bejessus out of you, but they can't refuse treatment.
The value judgements you cite here are based on who is in the queue first.
How is this germane to a discussion on abortion and the termination of life?
Look at that in the context of waiting lists for cancer treatment.
If you are a private patient, you can receive treatment.
If you are on a public waiting list, you are not receiving treatment.
Look at what happened to 41 year old Susie Long. She did not have health insurance. When she became ill, she had to wait seven months for a colonoscopy to diagnose her bowel cancer. She went on a public waiting list and by the time of her diagnosis, her condition had advanced and become terminal. The decision to put patients like her on waiting lists was no different to a refusal to treat her.
See here:
Seven months with no treatment on a public list, versus three days to be seen privately.In the summer of 2005 Susie went to her GP and was referred to her local hospital in Kilkenny for a colonoscopy. She waited patiently for this appointment for seven months as her symptoms continued to worsen. When a colonoscopy was finally performed in February 2006 Susie was diagnosed with advanced bowel cancer that was to be terminal. While undergoing chemotherapy in St Luke's Hospital Kilkenny Susie got chatting to a man in the bed next to her. He was also being treated for bowel cancer. He'd been referred by his GP at the same time as Susie for a colonoscopy but unlike her he had private health insurance and so only waited 3 days for the test. His early diagnosis was key to his survival.
There is a 2011 article by Susie Long's bereaved husband, Conor Mac Liam. Here is an extract from it:
71 people were waiting for more than a year for a colonoscopy in 2011. You say that the HSE can't refuse treatment? That's ignoring the facts that the waiting lists perform that exact function. Waiting lists are a deliberate mechanism to refuse to pay for required medical treatment.LAST WEEK, THE news broke that there were now twice as many people waiting over three months for a colonoscopy. More than 2,400 people. And 71 waiting over a year. Colonoscopies are critical for diagnosing bowel cancer in time. In my mind, it cannot but be the case that some of these will suffer the same fate as my wife, Susie Long.
So what is the answer? Should we abolish waiting lists and ensure immediate treatment for everybody? That would be ideal but we don't live in an ideal world where there is money to pay for all necessities. We live in an imperfect world of scarce resources, where some people are treated and live but other people are not treated and die.
It would be useful to attempt to understand how the fairest system could be introduced, at least.0 -
Advertisement
-
Pat Mustard wrote: »Look at that in the context of waiting lists for cancer treatment.
If you are a private patient, you can receive treatment.
If you are on a public waiting list, you are not receiving treatment.
Look at what happened to 41 year old Susie Long. She did not have health insurance. When she became ill, she had to wait seven months for a colonoscopy to diagnose her bowel cancer. She went on a public waiting list and by the time of her diagnosis, her condition had advanced and become terminal. The decision to put patients like her on waiting lists was no different to a refusal to treat her.
See here:
Seven months with no treatment on a public list, versus three days to be seen privately.
There is a 2011 article by Susie Long's bereaved husband, Conor Mac Liam. Here is an extract from it:
71 people were waiting for more than a year for a colonoscopy in 2011. You say that the HSE can't refuse treatment? That's ignoring the facts that the waiting lists perform that exact function. Waiting lists are a deliberate mechanism to refuse to pay for required medical treatment.
So what is the answer? Should we abolish waiting lists and ensure immediate treatment for everybody? That would be ideal but we don't live in an ideal world where there is money to pay for all necessities. We live in an imperfect world of scarce resources, where some people are treated and live but other people are not treated and die.
It would be useful to attempt to understand how the fairest system could be introduced, at least.
They are not refusing treatment, they are making you wait for it. Time is tissue I know.
Problem is they can't prioritise until they have the results of a colonoscopy. Could be cancer, could be a polyps. They don't know.
How does this relate to the mother/feotus query?
Is it ok to force a woman into carrying a pregnancy in such an over stretched and compromised health system....one which by the way has abolished ALL pre natal scans in its typical protocols...
As you illustrate in your post you take your life in your hands with the health system.
Is it ok to force a woman who has had four sections to carry through another pregnancy, risking rupture, hemorraging.... transfusion...you name it.0
Advertisement