quote:

---

A sailor's wife was pregnant with an anencephalic child, whose probability of surviving or of ever being conscious was zero. She, reasonably, wanted an abortion.

But the Congress had decided -- that no federal funds should be used to pay for abortions except where the life of the mother was at stake.

---

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/08/more_support_for_the_troops.php

The original article is in the New York Times, though, at:

quote:

---

6. I'm much less clear about pressing the appeal. The money had been spent, pursuant to court order. Even assuming, as seems to be the case, that the order was issued in error, was it really necessary to sue to get the money back? It seems to me that either DoD as the client or DoJ as the lawyer -- or, of course, the President of the United States as the head of the Executive Branch that includes both of them -- could reasonably have said "Enough is enough; we don't accept this case as binding on our future actions, but we're going to let it drop now" rather than trying to impoverish a military family that had already been put through an emotional wringer.

---

Well, indeed. I was under the impression that justice departments made such sensible and practical decisions all the time -- no?

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
jeff house, that link is not working for me. That could just be me, but could you check it?

---

Jeff and his dubious linkages.

quote:

---

I'm against any law that will allow the possibility of a birth defect or disability to be reason enough to justify an abortion while also very strong that women should have the choice of whether to have an abortion or not. I know that sounds like a contradiction but it isn't to me.

---

But it IS inherently contradictory. If a woman is able to have an abortion for any reason she determines to be sufficient, then "a birth defect" will be an adequate reason.

You say you are against any law which allows this, but how could a law be written which gives women absolute "choice" and then denies it in a specific subset of instances?

If women are NOT to have absolute control over their pregnancies, the only alternative is to create an inquisitorial authority which will determine whether the reasons provided are acceptable, or unacceptable.

That system was deemed in violation of the Charter of Rights in the Morgentaler decision.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisha:
I don't know how to explain it too clearly but I have a problem with allowing the persuasion of women who are not otherwise considering abortion on the grounds that a child may have a disability. I don't see it as a contradiction because it would be a moot point if abortion was already her choice no matter what her reasons.

---

This makes no sense at all. The fetus was anancephalic = no brain. There was no 'may' about it. And disability is way too mild a term.

I'm in agreement with her that the notion of aborting for birth defects is very troubling. I read recently about a hermaphrodite who stated that his condition is now on the list for termination. That seems to me way more fraught than this simple case of a baby without a brain.

I appreciate Jeff House's post that such a stance is contradictory and that I can't claim to support abortion for any reason while at the same time calling an exception for aborting for birth defects and I don't know how to formulate an answer to that.

Truthfully, for me, I guess, the answer to the riddle is that I don't support abortion for any and all reasons and, before I get flamed, please hear me out. I want abortion there as an option but I want it there as a last and drastic resort. I want birth control discussed openly and honestly in our public schools. I also want young women to understand what the true consequences of abortion often are.

In my experience, both sides of the abortion debate are riddled with contradiction. All but the most rabid pro-lifers support abortion in the case of rape or incest. Yet, really, if you truly believe that life is precious, then why would you kill such a fetus? On the other side, I am a cautious pro-choicer yet I am very concerned when young women are practically forced into abortions by well-meaning family members. In many cases, such decisions have more to do with families' shame than young women's decisions.

I think having the amnio often means you've already made that decision. Amnio testing is not without risk, either, so the fact that mothers undergo it indicates they're on their way already to making that decision.

[ 22 August 2005: Message edited by: MyNameisLeo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fern hill:
MyNameisLeo: Nobody, not even the most pro of pro-choicers, thinks abortion is a good thing. But, see, once a society allows it, it must be absolutely the choice of the woman alone. Otherwise, you get other people judging women's reasons, circumstances, 'morals' -- whatever matters the judges think pertain.

Someday, goddess willing, there will be perfect birth control, universal sex education, generous support for all children born in any circumstances. But until then there cannot be any 'partial' right to abortion.

---

Well, I certainly agree with that (and you expressed it very well) but I'm still troubled by women deciding which birth defects are acceptable and which are to mean sudden death. But I guess if I support a woman's right to abort a healthy fetus, then I shouldn't be bothered by her right to abort a less than perfect one. I'll have to mull that one over a little more.

quote:

---

I'm still troubled by women deciding which birth defects are acceptable and which are to mean sudden death.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dee:
The continum of birth defects is large and while I can understand the sentiment behind Leo and Trisha's posts (where does one draw the line as to what is acceptable or not in their child[?])

---

Only the most extreme anti-choicers would prohibit the abortion of an anencephalic fetus.

But, to your point about there being a continuum, the idea of aborting a fetus for very minor "defects" due to a fetus not meeting some idealized image of physical perfection sounds like something one would have found in Germany in the 1930's had amnios been available at that time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SamuelC:
That being said, there is no way to create a law that respects a right to chose an abortion but which, at the same time, prohibits abortions for aesthetic reasons (e.g., aborting a fetus with a genetic predisposition for stunted growth, webbed feet, etc.).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
And yet less appalling than the story that forms the topic of this thread.

---

However, since in principle her access to necessary healthcare wasn't prevented or blocked what do you do?

quote:

---

So is aborting a fetus for having six fingers per hand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
Which has precisely nothing to do with denying this particular woman access to the medical procedure she so obviously requires and is entitled to.

---

On second thought, it has everything to do with it. This woman was entitled to an abortion - even committed pro-lifers would agree. That's because being born without a brain isn't just a birth defect - it's more like not even being a human. From there, we moved on to discuss other defects. So, while not exactly on point, I can't agree that my post had "precisely nothing" to do with the original topic.

Heywood, I actually thought at first you were referring to males without penises. Assuming you meant aborting females - agreed. Aborting a child on the basis of gender is disgusting.

Why is it so shocking that she couldn't afford an abortion? Many American citizens can't afford health care procedures that they need.

[ 23 August 2005: Message edited by: MyNameisLeo ]

quote:

---

Would the world have been better off without Helen Keller?

---

This question is a familiar construct among the anti-abortionists. It is superficially sentimentally attractive, but everyone here should be able to grasp that it is both illogical and counter-realistic.

Is it possible that one or all of those fertilized ova that I, without doubt, shed entirely naturally during my years of fertility might have been Michelangelo, or someone just like him? Or Eleanor Roosevelt? Genghis Khan? Cleopatra?

In one sense, of course, yes, and in another, obviously not. That is, some of my fertilized eggs could have turned into geniuses, although hardly those geniuses exactly since no child of mine would have grown into the class profile of any of those people.

But they didn't, you see. Nature doesn't work the way that Leo is implying She does. Helen Keller wasn't the public figure we celebrate now when she was a fetus. That fetus may have had great potential, but it was her life that made Helen Keller "Helen Keller."

It is the living, those who begin to interact with the rest of the world and all other people, who become Helen Keller and Genghis Khan. And those who care about life will turn away from their self-aggrandizing sentimentalizing about fetuses to look at the living already among us, in many varying states, and to care for them.

I know Trisha to be one of the strongest advocates for people living with disabilities that I have ever met. I think she knows that I share her commitments on that score. If I disagree with her on one point, it is that I do not see a direct, realistic connection between her admirable consciousness-raising on the subject of people with disabilities and the free choice of women to become mothers or not.

And the wilder scenarios about and entire population of designer babies being raised here -- to me, those are absurd. Anyone who has done real work with living people with disabilities knows that those are absurd scenarios, that we are going to have among us for a very very long time living people with all kinds of disabilities, people we haven't bothered to understand very well and for whom we provide horrendously badly right now.

If you are seriously concerned about this crummy society and its attitudes towards disability, then roll up your sleeves and get out there and do some real work for the living. I know that Trisha does.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MyNameisLeo:
A BC writer (whose name escapes me at the moment) wrote very movingly about his life as a hermaphrodite. He said the condition is on the "recommended for termination" list. Please note that it's not his writing talent that I feel would have made his abortion a tragedy but it does sort of underscore the point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andrean:
Leo, are you thinking of
Brian Brett? His is a chromosomal disorder, not exactly hermaphrodism but some gender difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
This question is a familiar construct among the anti-abortionists. It is superficially sentimentally attractive, but everyone here should be able to grasp that it is both illogical and counter-realistic.

---

I am not an anti-abortionist. I am pro-choice but I still wrestle with abortion. I brought up Helen Keller because we were discussing aborting for birth defects. By most standards, Helen Keller would have been on the "recommended for termination" list. It's not the issue of people not being born that troubles me. It's the idea of trying to attain perfection.

You refer to picking and choosing as an absurd scenario but it's simply not. I know one couple whose first child was severely disabled and he was left at the hospital (and later adopted by a nurse). They promptly had another, deemed it satisfactory, and took it home. I don't think of children as chattels and this kind of thing really disturbs me.

quote:

---

But they didn't, you see. Nature doesn't work the way that Leo is implying She does.

---

No implication. My point was about people's decisions, not about nature.

quote:

---

And those who care about life will turn away from their self-aggrandizing sentimentalizing about fetuses to look at the living already among us, in many varying states, and to care for them.

---

This is a little harsh. I'm not "sentimental" about fetuses.

quote:

---

If you are seriously concerned about this crummy society and its attitudes towards disability, then roll up your sleeves and get out there and do some real work for the living. I know that Trisha does.

But others who snivel on self-righteously about fetuses without working for the living really get my dander up.

---

quote:

---

I don't think of children as chattels and this kind of thing really disturbs me.

---

I don't think of children -- or people with any kind of disability -- that way either, Leo.

But unlike you, I don't have the time or energy to worry about the people who can't do the serious work. I'm not sorry, frankly, that that couple you knew of left the one baby to be adopted by someone who is both more skilled and more committed to caring for that baby. I think that's great. And it isn't up to me to pluff up my own ego by thinking on and on about how noble I would have been in that situation, compared to those dreadful parents who couldn't cope. Who knows why they couldn't cope? From the baby's point of view, what matters is that a really good person stepped in.

Leo, I honestly don't believe that everyone is a good caregiver or a good parent, and I'm speaking from some experience. In the last few years, what has come to seem super-important to me is that people be honest about what they can and can't do as caregivers. The worst situation of all is to have people who aren't good at it doing the work because they feel they should.

To me, it's no shame, no blame. If you don't really care, then you can't be good at it -- and the truth is that most people really can't care in useful ways, not yet, anyway.

If you are good at nurturing, then that's great. But rabitting on and on about those who aren't begins to seem a little egotistical after a while, no? At least I have come to think so. When I was really in crisis, the last kind of help I wanted was from people who were being "dutiful."

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
I'm not sorry, frankly, that that couple you knew of left the one baby to be adopted by someone who is both more skilled and more committed to caring for that baby.

---

You're giving them the benefit of the most generous interpretation possible. Had the nurse not adopted that baby, they would have left him behind anyway. The fact is that they didn't want him because he was deformed.

What if their next one and their next one also was disabled? Would they just keep having more and more and more until they found one they were okay with? These are children we are talking about. We're not rooting through the vegetable section at the grocery store looking for that perfect ear of corn.

I am not the Supreme Court. I am a little person, one little person, and I wish to do good in the world during the little life I have.

Since that is very hard work, why on earth would I be wasting my time and energy playing judge and jury re some other people who make choices different from mine? I mean: why?

I don't know them. They're not doing anything illegal. And I have work to do.

quote:

---

Since that is very hard work, why on earth would I be wasting my time and energy playing judge and jury re some other people who make choices different from mine? I mean: why?

---

I may be wrong, but what some seem to be trying to say above is that parents who would abort a fetus for having 11 toes are bad people. I agree, they would be bad people. Evil. Detestable. They should be shunned.

That said, there can be no law against it without destroying a woman's right to choose. There's no third way.

Laws don't always stop people from doing bad things. Full stop.

[ 23 August 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]

quote:

---

It's a sticky issue alright.

---

Doesn't seem the least bit sticky to me. The woman had health insurance, provided by the US Military no less, who refused her claim for entirely non-medical reasons. And apparently the fifth circuit says that's entirely OK, because in their view women are obligated to carry foetuses to term no matter what the health risks.

[ 23 August 2005: Message edited by: ronb ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Leo, it has never occurred to me that it is up to me to be giving anyone "the benefit" of anything.

I am not the Supreme Court. I am a little person, one little person, and I wish to do good in the world during the little life I have.

Since that is very hard work, why on earth would I be wasting my time and energy playing judge and jury re some other people who make choices different from mine? I mean: why?

I don't know them. They're not doing anything illegal. And I have work to do.

The only reason I can see for obsessing about other people's choices is self-righteousness, the need to let the rest of the world know how good one is oneself. Silly waste of time in my book. Sorry.

---

I am completely stumped now. I am "obsessing," as you put it, not to "let the rest of the world know" how good I am but to point out to my fellow pro-choicers that pro-lifers have some merit in their argument.

There is no indication that these parents couldn't care for their disabled child. They just didn't want the burden. Okay, fine. I'm allowed to be appalled by their selfishness. The mother actually said to her friends that she was glad she didn't waste their favourite name on the boy. She wanted to save the good name for a good baby, I guess.

If the rule is that we are not to pass judgement on others, then it should be absolute. That means not criticizing George Bush, not criticizing the Christian Right, not criticizing anybody or anything because ... you know ... we don't want people to think we're exhibiting self-righteousness.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:

Doesn't seem the least bit sticky to me. The woman had health insurance, provided by the US Military no less, who refused her claim for entirely non-medical reasons. And apparently the fifth circuit says that's entirely OK, because in their view women are obligated to carry foetuses to term no matter what the health risks.

[ 23 August 2005: Message edited by: ronb ]

---

I don't know about non-medical reasons. The life of the mother wasn't at risk. From what I can interpret and understand about all the info posted on the condition of the foetus, there wasn't any extra medical risk to the mother's life for her to carry it to term.

The poster who made the comment (skdadl maybe???) about the difference between law and morality brought up the actual issue. It is not up to ANYONE to decide why someone should have an abortion.

However, for the sake of argument, I will say this:
For every 1 amazing case of some person with a disability/specialness are about 100 cases of people who lack proper treatment, care, love and support. Those are the people on the streets, people who are invisible in our society. This is not because of the parents, this is the result of society (many of us would say capitalism...but that is another debate).
If you were dirt poor, could barely feed your family, got pregnant, found our your child was born with some specialness that would costs 1000$ a month, require a full-time aid, thousands of hours a year on trying to ensure that your child does not get "pushed through the cracks" (cuz you know how our society treats the disabled), and if you were already working 14-hr days to support those children as a single mother with very little outside support, would you want to have that baby??

Not because you did not love them, not because you didn't want to care for them, but rather because it was not realistic. Because our society does not make it feasible for the poor to have disabled children. Step away for the morality, think about the reality.

It is the womyn's right to chose, not based on this "morality", but also based on societal circumstances and our system. So long as we have a system that pushes people (ahhhhem...womyn) into dire poverty (although I am not saying that only the wealthy should have kids, just saying the reality), poverty that runs them onto the street with every new child, it must be up to the womyn. Even without this system it must be up to the womyn.

It is a very priviliged statement to contend that everyone should have a child no matter their "abilities". The reality is that we live in capitalism and if your child is not perfect, it will cost you an arm and a leg, all of your time, a great deal of shame and more stress that anyone should ever be asked to endure.

I don't think it's amoral to decide not to have a disabled child, not in this society, it's reality. Change the society, make disabilities a responsibility of society, not the mother.

I think you should however start a thread on genetic testing and mapping for the purposes of adopting perfect children. I think that is one to be more concerned with...

quote:

---

Originally posted by marcella:
I do not think that aborting due to birth defects/"abnormalities" is a very hot issue. You often do not know about a child's specialness (is that better)

---

No thanks, "defects" was just fine. If it's not a hot issue, then what's amnio for?

quote:

---

I would be curious to see the stats on why wymyn abort (granted there are probably none).

---

So would I.

quote:

---

It is not up to ANYONE to decide why someone should have an abortion.

---

Well, clearly it has to be up to somebody.

quote:

---

For every 1 amazing case of some person with a disability/specialness are about 100 cases of people who lack proper treatment, care, love and support. Those are the people on the streets, people who are invisible in our society. This is not because of the parents, this is the result of society (many of us would say capitalism...but that is another debate).

---

There are a 1,000,000 reasons why people live on the streets. "Society," I shouldn't have to point out, includes street people's parents.

quote:

---

If you were dirt poor, could barely feed your family, got pregnant,

---

If I were "dirt poor," I would ensure that my wife didn't get pregnant.

quote:

---

and if you were already working 14-hr days to support those children as a single mother with very little outside support, would you want to have that baby??

---

This is hysteria and has nothing to do with the case I was talking about. This was a professional couple who had plenty of resources.

quote:

---

Step away for the morality, think about the reality.

---

They are inseparable.

quote:

---

Even without this system it must be up to the womyn.

---

I'm not a believer in the theory that men have no voice when it comes to abortion. Clearly, women have more voice, that is by necessity, but men still have a say.

quote:

---

The reality is that we live in capitalism and if your child is not perfect, it will cost you an arm and a leg, all of your time, a great deal of shame and more stress that anyone should ever be asked to endure.

---

Shame. That one word says so much. What were you saying about reality vs. morality?

quote:

---

Change the society, make disabilities a responsibility of society, not the mother.

---

quote:

---

I'm not a believer in the theory that men have no voice when it comes to abortion. Clearly, women have more voice, that is by necessity, but men still have a say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
It's not a theory. Men do not have a say, nor should they over another person's body. A woman may discuss her choices with her partner but she doesn't have to, and isn't obligated in any way to do so.

---

quote:

---

It is a theory. Believe me, I have a say. The "other person's body" is half mine genetically. Yes, I have a say. I will always have a say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
There is no "other person" except the Woman and she is not "yours" genetically or otherwise. You don't have a say, unless she invites you to express an opinion. Even then, sh can do as she sees fit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
You can say all you like. She is under no obligation to listen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
Oooh. It's the "women are chattel" argument. Cool. I expect this is going to be very popular.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
Thanks, just doing my job, combatting the oblivious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
And uh, no that's you actually. The "unborn child" you refer to is not your property, nor is the woman it is hypothetically attached to. For that to be the case, the woman in question would have to be, legally, your property.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
OK. I'll let scout tear you to shreds then if you prefer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
And uh, no that's you actually. The "unborn child" you refer to is not your property, nor is the woman it is hypothetically attached to. For that to be the case, the woman in question would have to be, legally, your property.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
What does "mine" mean do you suppose?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grant I R:
I think what you mean is when, and if, a baby is born you have a RESPONSIBILITY as a father.

Until that time a fetus is simply a part of a woman and any medical choices she makes are hers to make alone if that is HER wish.

---

quote:

---

This can be acknowledged, however, without the femnazi chant that men have no say.

---

Boy are you a duffus

*Closes door walks quietly away*

[ 23 August 2005: Message edited by: Grant I R ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grant I R:
Boy are you a duffus

*Closes door walks quietly away*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
Oh. feminazi. I see . Buh bye Leo. Nice knowing you.

---

Pardon me. What should I call someone who tells me I have no say, none whatsoever, in my unborn child's future?

I'm male. I'll just sit here in the corner until I'm "invited to speak."

[ 23 August 2005: Message edited by: MyNameisLeo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
Here's guessing you will be disinvited to speak in the very near future.

---

quote:

---

This can be acknowledged, however, without the femnazi chant that men have no say.

---

But Audra I didn't get to tell him to fuck off and die! It's my turn damn it!

But I do feel like getting in the last word, in actuality for once, considering I am always accused of wanting it I must keep up the pretenses:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:

But Audra I didn't get to tell him to fuck off and die! It's my turn damn it!

But I do feel like getting in the last word, in actuality for once, considering I am always accused of wanting it I must keep up the pretenses:

Leo, buddy old pal, you have no say, none, nada, zip, zilch. Suck it up. It's really that simple.

---

WOMEN'S HEALTH: Conspiracy of silence about breast cancer
by Babette Francis

In all the thousands of words which have been written on breast cancer since Kylie Minogue's diagnosis, little has been said about prevention. Emphasis has been on early diagnosis; none on risk reduction.

Early diagnosis is very important, of course, because the earlier the cancer is identified, the greater the chance of cure. However, prevention is even better than cure, but cancer councils, intimidated by feminists, are reluctant to advise how reproductive factors affect breast-cancer risk.

Most breast cancer is caused by over-exposure to estrogen, a female hormone made in the ovaries and fat. Estrogen, an acknowledged carcinogen, stimulates breast tissue to increase cell divisions, which can result in cancers due to mutations.

The more estrogen breasts are exposed to, the higher the risk of breast cancer. During each menstrual cycle, women are exposed to increased estrogen levels at ovulation. Early age at puberty and late menopause increase breast cancer risk; late puberty and early menopause decrease risk.

Breast cancer risk is affected by the maturation of lobules which comprise milk glands. At birth females have primitive type 1 lobules which develop into type 2 lobules at puberty. Both types 1 and 2 are susceptible to carcinogens. After 32 weeks of pregnancy, lobules mature into type 3 lobules. Type 4 lobules are formed after childbirth and produce milk. Types 3 and 4 are resistant to carcinogens.

If a woman does not have a full-term pregnancy, she has an increased risk of breast cancer since she never develops types 3 and 4 lobules. If she has children later in life (after age 30), she has increased risk because for most of her menstrual life estrogen has been stimulating types 1 and 2 lobules. If she has children as a teenager, she has decreased risk of breast cancer as lobules mature early to types 3 and 4.

In an article, "Young, Pregnant and Cancer Free", Time magazine (May 2, 2005) stated:

"Women who give birth before age 20 halve their risk of developing breast cancer, according to a new study. A hormone produced during pregnancy seems to provide lifetime protection."

Parents who rush a pregnant teenager to an abortion clinic, should be aware that they are depriving her of protection against a disease which is the major killer of women of child-bearing age, and the third most significant cause of death in post-menopausal women. Unplanned pregnancy won't kill you or your daughter, but breast cancer might.

A woman who breastfeeds has low estrogen cycles or misses menstrual cycles altogether. She has decreased breast cancer risk due to less exposure to estrogen and breast tissue maturation to type 4 lobules. Risk decreases with longer duration of breastfeeding - the World Health Organization recommends breastfeeding for 24 months. Mothers who leave babies in day-care deprive themselves of the risk-reduction that breastfeeding provides.

During a normal pregnancy, estrogen levels rise 2,000 per cent by the end of the first trimester. Most miscarriages do not increase breast cancer risk since they are associated with low estrogen levels. A first trimester miscarriage is quite different from induced abortion of a normal pregnancy.

When pregnancy is terminated before breast cells reach full maturity, a woman is left with more types 1 and 2 lobules than before her pregnancy started and therefore is at increased risk. The risk is especially high for teenagers who have an abortion before their first full-term pregnancy; for women who have never had a child; and for those with a family history of breast cancer.

Most women who develop breast cancer have not had abortions, nor do all women who have abortions develop breast cancer. Nevertheless abortion is a risk factor and is the most avoidable risk factor. Women cannot change family history, age at puberty or menopause, but they can avoid abortions.

The incidence of breast cancer jumped 40 per cent in 10 years (1987-1997), 28 years after the de facto legalisation of abortion in Australia. If any business had such a ghastly result, it would be bankrupt, but health departments remain unmoved.

The best way to reduce risk of breast cancer is to have babies before age 30 and breastfeed as long as possible. This is "the unacknowledged elephant in the room" - or babies in the nursery which cancer councils do not talk about.

Babette Francis, B.Sc (Hons), is co-ordinator of Endeavour Forum Inc., an affiliate of the International Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

Who has the links? That non-science has been debunked and denounced repeatedly by all the respected medical authorities in every Western nation, I believe.

When Can Fetuses Feel Pain?

quote:

---

(AP) A review of medical evidence by a group of researchers in California concludes that fetuses likely don't feel pain until the final months of pregnancy, a powerful challenge to abortion opponents who hope that discussions about fetal pain will make women think twice about ending pregnancies.

Critics angrily disputed the findings and claim the report is biased.

"They have literally stuck their hands into a hornet's nest," said Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, a fetal pain researcher at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, who believes fetuses as young as 20 weeks old feel pain. "This is going to inflame a lot of scientists who are very, very concerned and are far more knowledgeable in this area than the authors appear to be. This is not the last word — definitely not."

The review by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco comes as advocates are pushing for fetal pain laws aimed at curtailing abortion. Proposed federal legislation would require doctors to provide fetal pain information to women seeking abortions when fetuses are at least 20 weeks old, and to offer women fetal anesthesia at that stage of the pregnancy. A handful of states have enacted similar measures.

---

I don't mind considering that childbirth itself, breastfeeding, and maternal age may all be factors in decreasing some cancer risks for some women. That all seems possible to me.

She taks pains to link putting childen in a daycare to increased risk, throught the breastfeeding effect. If one expresses breastmilk, does it have the same effect? I wonder if wearing tulip dresses and heels around the house also reduces the risk? Avoidence of unladylike swear words?

Breast cancer incidence increased 40% in Aus 28 years after abortion was legalised? So where's the link? There's a 3-decade lag effect? Come on! The question is how many of those women who have had breast cancer had also had abortions.

I wonder what the difference is in health outcomes for women who have had abortions, compared to lone mothers? Not that I'm advocating abortion for these women, but I am sure someone could make the case that the health effects of having an unwanted pregnancy and raising a child in adverse economic or familial situations is far worse than the small (I expect- haven't looked) increase they claim in breast cancer risk.

Grrrr....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mush:
I admit I haven't time to read that article, but I wonder what the difference in actual risk for breast cancer is between a woman who had an abortion at a relatively young age, and another who had (as they seem to prescribe) a full-term pregnancy before age 30, and breast fed. I suspect the real difference isn't much.

---