Posted on 10/20/2006 9:42:13 PM PDT by Coleus
I have been a pediatrician in Rapid City for 26 years now. During those 26 years it has been my job and privilege to attend the births of many infants whose pregnancies were complicated in various ways: prematurety, infections, toxemia, multiple births among many others. My job is to care for the infant and give him or her the best chance at a whole and satisfying life. Sadly medical technology and my own skills have not always been up to the task, but the intent was to give the baby the best care available.
I want to tell you from a medical perspective that it is very, very rare that a physician would need to choose between the life of the mother and the life of the child. There is almost always something that can be done for both. This has always been traditional obstetric practice. We now can do amazing things with fetal medicine. Diagnoses are being made earlier and earlier. Treatment interventions are being devised and implemented. Surgery is now being done on unborn babies while they are still in the womb, amazing. Why are all these incredible things being done? Because all life is precious and God given. All children deserve the life that God has planned for him in His infinite wisdom.
Our opponents in this campaign would have you belief that if the law banning abortions in South Dakota is upheld doctors will go to jail and women in South Dakota will be left with no health care. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Currently no South Dakota doctors do abortions; therefore no South Dakota doctors would be prosecuted under HB1215 when it is upheld. The only abortions done in South Dakota are done by 4 physicians from Minneapolis brought in to SF by Planned Parenthood. The bill also specifically protects physicians doing a legitimate medical procedure to save a woman’s life. It protects doctors doing a legitimate procedure where something goes wrong and a baby is inadvertently harmed. South Dakota physicians and South Dakota women have nothing to fear from this legislation.
The overwhelming number of abortions done in South Dakota and across our nation are done for expediency or convenience. They are done on perfectly healthy babies and perfectly healthy mothers. They are not done for rape, not done for incest, not done for fetal anomalies, and not done to save the life of the mother. They are done because a pregnant woman feels hopeless or helpless. We as a society and especially a Christian community need to seek out these women and be instruments of God’s grace and compassion.
I have in my practice now a 16 year old mother who was raped by her brother. So here we have in one case the two stumbling blocks that most people have with HB1215. She decided that the only innocent person in this unfortunate situation besides herself was her unborn child. What a brave decision for anyone to make, much less a traumatized 16 year old. I have great hope and faith that if a 16 year old can get it right so can the rest of South Dakotans.
The psychological literature is full of data indicating that abortion following a rape is more traumatic than the rape itself and leads to more long lasting emotional and psychological complications. We have interviewed many women who have told us their child has been the healing instrument from the trauma of the rape. And if it unfortunately happened to them again that they would make the same decision.
HB1215 does contain a specific provision for woman to receive emergency contraception following a sexual crime. We desire for them to receive complete and compassionate medical care and for them to receive justice. An abortion in theses situations is not compassionate and denies justice. An abortion in these situations causes long term harm for the mother and protects the rapist. Is this really what we want to do in South Dakota?
I have also over the years had the privilege of caring for many malformed, abnormal children whose lives were cut short or handicapped in human terms. Perfect in God’s plan, but not in our clouded viewpoint. NONE of the families that I have served, in these situations, have regretted their child’s life. They ALL celebrated and treasured something special in their child’s life, however brief. I have counted it a privilege by Gods grace to be involved with these families. I of course have some in my practice now. There are people who adopt children with special needs. I can think of several of them easily. In fact you will hear from one of these amazing persons soon. They are almost all Christian people who feel led by God to do this work, may God richly reward their faithfulness.
Surveys have shown that 80% of people agree that abortion is morally wrong; but, women in a crisis pregnancy don’t know where to turn or are frequently coerced. They are rejected by pro-life people for becoming pregnant and considering an abortion or having one, and not told the truth or had their feelings validated by the poor choice side. There have now been 45 to 50 million abortions done in our country. Therefore there are at least that many hurting women in our society. They are all someone’s daughter, mother, sister or aunt, sorority sister or best friend.
There are also an equal number of men who suffer in various ways. Perhaps they were the ones who coerced the abortion in the first place. If our countries population is around 300 million, think for a moment with me what a staggering toil this sin has extracted from our society. I have in the past pondered how many firemen, teachers, plumbers we have aborted over the years. How many priests and pastors, concert musicians and geniuses. How many ordinary working folks who comprise our society. I continue to ponder that from time to time.
But today I focus more of my attention on the millions of people who have been harmed psychologically by abortion. The lost wages and productivity. The depression and suicide. The child abuse and neglect. The substance abuse and addictions of all kinds. The lose of hope and happiness direction and purpose. The destruction of marriages and families. Oh what a burden our society carries for it’s sin. What an opportunity to be instruments of God’s healing grace. Please God let it start here in this state today. Let your grace and mercy go forth and heal our land. Whatever the results of the election may be. Abortion is not an unforgivable sin.
My pastor reminded me recently that Moses, David, and Paul all had something in common. They were each guilty of murder. Our Savior once had an encounter with a woman caught in the very act of adultery and deserving of stoning. Our savior did not condemn this woman for her sexual sin, in fact He specifically said I don’t condemn you, go and sin no more. I trust my brief comments have reassured you that even in complicated pregnancy cases there is something that can be medically done.
I believe this law protects the women and physicians of South Dakota. There is a provision in the bill to help victims of sexual crimes. The human costs in terms of suffering in our country are enormous .Several years ago I served in the army. There was a saying about the good soldier: The good soldier, the brave soldier was the one who when he heard the sounds of battle, he picked up his weapon and ran towards the sound. In the video you heard from such soldiers. Even though badly wounded they pickup their weapons and run towards the sound of battle.
We need an army of such soldiers as these. We need you. Martin Luther once said “If you are a Christian soldier, and if you are not were the battle is the hottest, you are a traitor to the cause”. I am a board member of VoteYesForLife.com, a coalition of people from all across South Dakota. We come from all the major political parties, from different denominations and walks of life. We are united in our desire to save babies and women from the harmful physical, emotional, and psychological effects of abortion. We desperately need your help.
We know this is God’s battle but He chooses to work thru His people. We need you to talk to your congregations, to preach God’s healing message of grace by which we all are saved. Those of us who are from the Reformed faith, all across the nation, will be fasting and praying on Sunday Nov. 5th . We need you to talk to friends, relatives, and neighbors. We need campaign volunteers. Listen…Listen…can you hear it? There is a battle raging for the hearts and minds of God’s people. Who among you will pickup your "weapons" and join us? Dr. Donald Oliver is a respected Rapid City pediatrician. He is also a board member of VoteYesForLife.com, and member of South Dakota Physicians for Life.
Ectopic pregnancies do not all wind up in death for the child or the mother. Many can and do survive. JivinJehoshaphat
Thank you. But, there is a difference between what you just stated and what the title stated. In a semantical and ontological war, we have to be careful not to over- or under-state what is real.
Abortion is the opposite of love:
Love says: "I will sacrifice myself for you".
Abortion says: "I will sacrifice you for myself".
How is the abortion debate ontological? There is no argument that the unborn baby exists.
It is not true that many can survive. The baby never survives in the tube, because it ruptures if allowed to grow. Very rarely a fetus implants somewhere else in the abdominal cavity and, while risky to the mom, some do survive.
But aside from ectopic pregnancies, most "high risk" pregnancies can be dealt with in a way that preserves both the mother's and baby's life. It is not possible in every single case, but in the vast majority, it is.
That "it" exists as a person (or that we cannot demonstrate otherwise) is the rubber.
Ecclesiastes 11:5
But science and reason tell us that humanity is humanity and life is life, therefore human life is human life -- as the Word informs, God knew us even before we were conceived.
Ectopic pregnancies do not all wind up in death for the child or the mother.
The first site you link to has correct medical information - that some ectopic pregnancies resolve themselves, which does mean death of the embryo. The only, and very rare, cases where both mother and infant survive is when the ovum implants in the abdominal cavity and gets sufficient blood supply. These are very unusual situations, and even then the mortality rate after live births is high.
There isn't a way around this currently; an ectopic that doesn't self-resolve is a reason for either medical or surgical intervention.
"Ectopic pregnancies do not all wind up in death for the child or the mother. Many can and do survive."
Are you talking about the women surviving?
And that, frankly, is a distinction without a difference. Death is death, alas.
There is a difference. In an abortion, the fetal death is most often unnecessary. In an ectopic pregnancy, it is generally unavoidable. They may both be dead, but one was a "choice".
One can't say, "Abortion is never necessary, because if it's necessary, it isn't an abortion." and be taken seriously -- by anyone.
Amen!
That is not what I am saying at all. I said that ending an ectopic pregnancy is not considered an abortion. It should not even be part of the abortion argument. It has always been considered life-saving treatment and has never been prohibited or restricted.
But that has no bearing on whether abortion in the case of intra-uterine pregnancies is necessary. Those are the pregnancies that are meant by the author. You are trying to confuse the issue of abortion by including ectopic pregnancies.
Bump
a bump to your post no. 7 and the Fr. Pavone quote
"Abortion is a form of psychic self-destruction, and if practiced on a large scale it will have the gravest consequences for any society that condones it. Abortion is the ultimate denial of both fetus and mother. It is an act of aggression. Not to help the mother, but to advise her to abort is to push her even deeper into her loneliness and isolation, to provoke a depression which in our experience is malignant and incurable."
...The late, great Dr. Conrad Baars, psychiatrist
A quote from his book "Healing the Unaffirmed"
"A pregnancy is a pregnancy."
You really are being foolish to equate an ectopic pregnancy with a normal pregnancy. Women do not have "abortions" to "choose" to end their ectopic pregnancies. This is like equating having an emergency appendectomy with some loon who wants their perfectly good limb amputated.
What would you have women with ectopic pregnanices do? Attempt to bring them to term?
Once again, the argument is being made that, "there is no such thing as a justifyable abortion, because if it is justified, it isn't an abortion," which is a classic case of begging the question. The fact in common in either case is that there is a pregnancy, with a living human child.
The fact that one pregnancy is not normal and will lead to the death of the mother if allowed to continue is the grounds for cutting the child away, even if it is certain, that this will end his life. And that is a case where ending this doomed baby's life is necessary in order to preserve the life of the mother.
To say, "I just won't call that an abortion," in order to say, "there is no such thing as a medically required abortion" is silly sophistry.
To "abort" anything simply means to end it. Period. Being a physician doesn't give license to change the meaning of the word, to make it sound better when they end the life of a child that doesn't happen to be in the womb, proper. And the word means to interfere with a process, in order to end it. It doesn't mean "to interfere with a process unnecessarily, to end it," but just to end it. It is a morally neutral term, standing on its own.
Don't let that worry you, though. The medical profession suffers from semantic sophistry for convenience in other ways, too. For example, it is a ludicrous and hideous misnomer, to label any human being as existing in a "vegetative state." Human bodies don't slide into conditions of biologically nearing the state of vegetable matter and neither do human souls. But it does make the failure to treat a person as one must treat a person, sound better.
God bless doctors who perform only the very rare cases of necessary abortions. But they don't get to change the rules of language, by some caveat of medical terminology.
Great post.
Not quite what you all were discussing, but related a bit.
Ectopic Pregnancy Deaths After Abortions: "women undergoing induced abortion are actually more likely to die of ectopic pregnancy complications than women intending to carry to term."
ending an ectopic pregnancy is not considered an abortion. It should not even be part of the abortion argument. It has always been considered life-saving treatment and has never been prohibited or restricted.
Whether it's ever been restricted really doesn't have a bearing on the definition. And to muddy the waters further, the medical term for a miscarriage is "spontaneous abortion." The definition considers the process, not whether it's legal or illegal, moral or immoral, etc. From the online medical dictionary:
"The premature expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception of the embryo or of a nonviable foetus. ... The expulsion or removal of an embryo or foetus from the mother prematurely, can be done as an artificial procedure, but it often happens naturally when the mother's body expels the foetus because it has died, has genetic or developmental defects, or because of infection or illness in the mother."
But "life of the mother" makes such a great shibboleth to raise as an obstacle to alternatives to partial-birth abortion. Much easier than having to think it through.
Does this legislation outlaw abortion for ectopic pregnancy?
Be assured, there will never be legislation proposed for outlawing abortion where it is necessary to save the life of the mother.
I thought it referred to instances where there was merely one preganancy --- in a tube.
I thought it referred to instances where there was merely one pregnancy --- in a tube.
I don't think they are referring to twin pregnancies.
You seem to be the only one mentioning twins.
They are not merely referring to cases of twin pregnancies.
Here's an excerpt from one of the many linked articles
Proper post-abortion pathology reports would detect that no embryo was removed from the uterus, and would clue the abortionist in to the fact that the pregnancy was ectopic.I never went to medical school, but my math is okay.
1 fetus + 0 fetus = 1 fetus (not twins)
The coroner blamed Sherry's death on the fact that Water Tower threw fetal remains away without a pathology analysis. However, the police found that Sherry had a reciept from Water Tower indicating a $50 discount. They hypothesized that staff might have noted the lack of a fetus in the aspirator, concluded that Sherry hadn't been pregnant, and given her a partial refund.
The fact that the abortion specimen did not contain fetal parts should have indicated that Gladyss had an ectopic pregnancy. This condition is routinely treated by competent doctors, saving the lives of the mothers. But Ross missed his diagnosis and allowed Gladyss to leave his clinic with her life in danger.
It's very sad that it takes the death of a woman to reveal shoddy practices in an abortion clinic.
Not only did the abortionist fail to diagnose Yvette's ectopic pregnancy, but the fact that she'd had an abortion led to a misdiagnosis at the hospital
Sorry about the number of posts.
It took me some time to gather my thoughts and to realize how thoroughly you dismissed this idea that abortions on women with ectopic pregnancies can lead to fatalities. I think it's understandable that I was taken aback. I have no medical background, and you say you have one, so I doubted what my own eyes told me the article actually said.
I can imagine that multiple pregnancies, such as you describe, in which one twin settles in the fallopian tube and the other settles in the uterus, are very rare.
It's important to make sure that everyone, especially the occasional slap-dash abortionist, is aware of the very real risks involved for women with ectopic pregnancies who seek abortions.
You wrote: One thing is for sure: to blame the undiagnosed twin ectopic on the abortion itself, is ridiculous.
In some twin pregnancies, one embryo may implant in the uterus and the other may implant at an ectopic location. This rare event is called a heterotopic pregnancy and occurs more commonly in women undergoing some infertility treatments.[snip]The incidence of ectopic pregnancy is higher in the infertility population, mostly due to the increased incidence of tubal abnormalities in these women. Fertility drugs also appear to alter tubal function by their effects on hormones and may be associated with the increased risk in this population.[snip]
IVF, a fertility treatment in which a woman's egg is fertilized outside the body and then placed in her uterus, is associated with an increased risk of both ectopic and heterotopic pregnancy.
According to the articles I cited above....some of the women died because either the uterine contents were not sent out to a lab and/or the abortuary staff failed to notify the woman that there had been no fetus in her uterus.
How about this:
In a good number of cases,?
a woman's choice to have an abortion
set up the circumstances that led to her death.
An abortion can "bring about" a failure to recognize the symptoms of an ectopic pregnancy, just as folic acid can "bring about" a failure to recognize the symptoms of B12 deficiency.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.