Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion

http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/matmort2.htmlWorldwide Maternal Mortality Statistics1,600 pregnant women die dailyThe first new estimates in a decade show that almost 600,000 women die in pregnancy and childbirth each year. And for every woman who dies, 30 more suffer serious pregnancy- related injuries.
The process of bringing new life into the world is a major cause of death and disability among young women in developing countries, according to The Progress of Nations 1996, the latest edition of a yearly report from the United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef).Unicef executive director Carol Bellamy said: "It is no exaggeration to say that this is one of the most neglected tragedies of our times, when 1,600 women, some in their teens, die every day during pregnancy or childbirth and many of these deaths are readily preventable."The new data show that one in 13 women in sub-Saharan Africa dies of maternal causes, as does one in 35 women in south Asia.The figure for Western Europe is one woman in 3,200. In the United States, it is one in 3,300. In Canada, it is one in 7,300.The figures are new and more comprehensive than in previous studies.Compiled by Unicef, the World Health Organisation and John Hopkins University, the data show a 20 per cent increase over previous estimates.Unicef will continue its fight to get this issue onto the public and political agenda," said Bellamy, who also pointed out the serious consequences of these statistics for children.According to the report, nearly 600,000 women dying each year in childbirth leave behind at least a million motherless children.The statistics in the Unicef report paint a grim picture of the toll of motherhood on young women’s lives.The most common cause of death during pregnancy and childbirth each year include 140,000 from haemorrhaging, 75,000 from attempting to abort themselves, 100,000 from sepsis and 40,000 from obstructed labour.In addition, one quarter of all adult women in the developing world are affected by injuries related to pregnancy and childbirth. These injuries are painful, humiliating and often permanent, says the Unicef report.The most distressing is fistula, which leaves an estimated 80,000 women a year injured and incontinent.Most cases go untreated, and somewhere between 500,000 and one million women are living with the problem at this moment, says the report.If the toll of maternal death and injury is to be reduced, says Unicef, then the silence that surrounds the issue has to be broken.According to the report, the delivery of adequate obstetric care to women in developing countries would not be expensive. Affordable basic training in obstetric care could be provided for doctors, midwives and nurses. This would ensure safer deliveries for most pregnant women.You don't need five-star hospitals," says the report. "There are thousands of hospitals in the developing world that, with minimum upgrading, could provide adequate obstetric care.But many are unusable for the lack of a hundred dollars worth of maintenance, a repair to an anaesthesia machine, the installation of proper lighting."In a chapter on social issues in the industrialised world, the Progress of Nations 1996 looks at child poverty in the world's most economically successful nations.With more than one in five of its children below the poverty line, the United States has the largest number of poor children. (United States also has the largest number of rich children in the world).Four other countries, Australia, Canada, Ireland and Israel, have child poverty rates of more than 10 per cent.

CDC - Page Not FoundMaternal Mortality -- United States, 1982-1996Maternal and infant mortality are basic health indicators that reflect a nation's health status. In the United States, infant mortality has declined steadily; however, this is not true for maternal mortality. This report presents data from death certificates compiled by CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, which indicate that in the United States, the annual maternal mortality ratio * remained approximately 7.5 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births during 1982-1996.Annual maternal mortality ratios were calculated using information contained on death certificates filed in state vital statistics offices and compiled by CDC (1,2). Maternal deaths were defined as those deaths that occurred during a pregnancy or within 42 days of the end of a pregnancy and for which the cause of death was listed as a complication of pregnancy, childbirth, or the puerperium (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes 630-676). Maternal mortality ratios were calculated as the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births (1,2).In 1930, the national maternal mortality ratio was 670 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births (3). The ratio declined substantially during the 1940s and 1950s, and continued to decline until 1982. During 1982-1996, the annual maternal mortality ratio fluctuated between approximately 7 and 8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births (Figure_1). During that time, trends by race were similar to the overall ratio, and no reductions were observed for either black or white women. Maternal mortality ratios remained higher for black women than for white women. Ratios for black women generally fluctuated between 18 and 22 per 100,000 births and for white women between 5 and 6 per 100,000 live births.Reported by: Div of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; Div of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics, CDC.Editorial Note
Editorial Note: Since 1982 in the United States, no progress has been made toward achieving the Healthy People 2000 goal of 3.3 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births set in 1987 (objective 14.3) (4). The reason for this lack of improvement in maternal mortality is not clear. However, during this same time period, infant mortality has declined steadily because of advances in the survival of low birthweight and preterm infants and in the prevention of some causes of postneonatal mortality, such as sudden infant death syndrome.The United States has not reached an irreducible minimum in maternal mortality; WHO estimates demonstrate that 20 countries have reduced maternal mortality levels to below those of the United States (5). Primary prevention of maternal deaths, such as those associated with ectopic pregnancy and some cases of infection and hemorrhage, is possible. However, some complications that can occur during pregnancy cannot be prevented (e.g., pregnancy-induced hypertension, placenta previa, retained placenta, and thromboembolism). Nevertheless, more than half of all maternal deaths can be prevented through early diagnosis and appropriate medical care of pregnancy complications (6,7). Hemorrhage, pregnancy-induced hypertension, infection, and ectopic pregnancy continue to account for most (59%) maternal deaths.When compared with white women, black women continue to have four times the risk for dying from complications of pregnancy and childbirth (2), although the risk for developing maternal complications is less than twice that of white women (8). This suggests that access to and use of health-care services for early diagnosis and effective treatment, if complications develop, may be a factor. In 1996, if the maternal mortality ratio for black women were equal to that for white women, the national maternal mortality ratio would have declined by 32% from 7.6 to 5.1 per 100,000 live births.In this report, maternal mortality ratios are based solely on vital statistics data and are underestimates because of misclassification. The number of deaths attributed to pregnancy and its complications is estimated to be 1.3 to three times that reported in vital statistics records (6). Misclassification of maternal deaths occurs when the cause of death on the death certificate does not reflect the relation between a woman's pregnancy and her death. In addition, the inclusion of deaths causally related to pregnancy that occur between 43 and 365 days postpregnancy can increase the number of maternal deaths identified by 5%-10% (6).To identify interventions that may have an impact on reducing maternal mortality, approximately 25 states have reestablished maternal mortality review committees. These committees review various factors that may have contributed to maternal deaths, including the quality of medical care and systemic problems in the health-care delivery system. To assess the problem and develop appropriate interventions to reduce the number of maternal deaths, all states should implement active surveillance of maternal mortality, including maternal mortality review committees.In 1998, the World Health Organization designated Safe Motherhood as the focus for World Health Day (April 7), indicating the importance of this issue globally. In the United States, several measures that need to be implemented include providing all women with access to family planning services, because unintended pregnancies are associated with higher risks for both mother and infant (9). Women should know how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and women with STDs need effective and early treatment to prevent ectopic pregnancies. All women need access to culturally appropriate and quality prenatal, delivery, and postpartum care. The prevention of complications and the early diagnosis and effective treatment of any complication is critical. Although prenatal-care use in the United States has been increasing, in 1996, approximately 10% of all pregnant women received inadequate or no prenatal care (10).In the United States, the theme for World Health Day 1998 was "Invest in the Future: Support Safe Motherhood." The proposed Healthy People 2010 goal for maternal mortality remains 3.3 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. Unless investments are made in improving maternal health for all women, this goal will not be reached.

quote:

---

It is sad that we casually abandon potential lives

---

What makes you think that women "casually" decide to get an abortion?

Honestly? I think that's where the shadowy forces that control the conservatives want us to wind up - where no woman has the right not to be pregnant. If abortion is murder, then so is contraception; hell, so is abstinence. Anything that prevents a birth is murder.

No, you said it is also okay when the life of the mother is at risk or the gestational being is going to be dead anyway. It has already been pointed out that as long as a woman is pregnant her life is at risk and the gestational being's existence is not assured. So why is it not understandable for a woman to terminate a pregnancy before a risk can become great and when the gestational being isn't in a state where it's birth is assured?In any case, while sex is intentional, reproduction is not. What is the difference between a woman getting pregnant when she didn't want to just because in one case a person forced the sex upon her, and in another bad luck forced the reproductive cycle upon her? Have you ever heard of preaching to the choir? I am sure it confirms everything you felt. You know what? It doesn't confirm what others feel or felt. Diversity, get used to it.Oh by the way... The first sentence is about the most meaningless thing I've read in some time. If the trauma never surfaces in a person's lifetime, that would be "no trauma". The second sentence is a bunch of garbage. Who the hell ever said it was casual and harmless? It is a medical procedure (which usually brings some emotional issues) and the woman will likely face post-partum depression, just as she would if she had the child.Ironically, pregnancy is not as harmless and casual as the anti-choice crowd insist. Nice dodge, now let's return to reality. You are not LIABLE when you have taken adequate precautions. I did not say a bunch of drunk or reckless mountain climbers. I said there was an accident (rocks can crack all on their own, or sudden moisture make a surface slippery). In such a case you couldn't be liable.Yes if you get behind the wheel of a car drunk you are liable, adequate precaution for driving is not driving while intoxicated. Concentrate on the line of argument. Accidents happen, adequate precaution removes liability, in such cases abortion works to remove the threat of harm resulting from a pregnancy which was not intentional. I don't need numbers. I said if pregnancy was a snap most women probably wouldn't have abortions. Do you really think this isn't true?If you want numbers I'd suggest combing the threads for the abortion info provided to me by an anti-abortion person at EvC. You can find who he is by looking in the short subject forum under the thread which reads as an apology to me. It happens to be an apology that he misread the stats: turns out pregnancy is a greater risk than abortion.Yes, if a woman is concerned about her health, and is not currently wanting a child, it seems like a better choice not to go through with a pregnancy. I didn't, and I wouldn't. This whole movement to classify a gestational being as a child, based on hysterical scenarios of wanting to put a guy on death row for the termination of a pregnancy is so obvious and ridiculous. The end goal is to get everyone to agree that it is a person for that criteria (revenge), and then say "AH HA!!! Then abortionists are doing the same thing!"Go back to sleep if you think that cheap trick is going to work on me. I actually have a thought out position on this subject. No, the attacker is not guilty of murder. Okay now, this is where things seem to fall apart. I agree that it is easy to make the mistake you made, but not after we keep explaining it. He used it to find characteristics that are important in defining what a person is. It did not hinge on facts of whether the criteria were forever lost or not. It was getting at what do we see as important within humans, to classify them as persons.I don't see what you have as a problem with that. This is a contradiction. By the way, how come I am a product of the same society and I never had a pregnancy, nor an STD despite much unmarried sexual encounters? Maybe its because I knew that if you truly wanted to avoid any pregnancies you had to have nonvaginal sex or layer protective options? It is okay to have sex. It is not 100% safe to have vaginal sex. If she were taking birth control according to directions then you were still taking a risk to have vaginal sex, but it was minimal enough that I don't think you were responsible for intentionally or negligently causing a pregnancy. In other words you would not be liable.Just like you probably drive a car around. Despite knowing the rules of the road and keeping your car maintained, if one day the brakes just give out, you would not be responsible for what happened next... right? What lesson? That you made a mistake and didn't like your choice and so now you get to blast into people in society that do not believe as you do? To propagate myths regarding sex and pregnancy that are not only wrong but end up hurting innocent women?If you wanted sympathy you could have just said that you had made a mistake and learned the lesson that one should not take the choice of abortion lightly, and should consider your deeper feelings about the nature of life because it could haunt you... there is no taking back the choice.I could have respected that."Don't screw, sex caused pregnancy", "fetuses are unborn babies, that will likely live if you give them a chance", and "even if you are told the odds are long if you put your faith in God the child (or the woman) will be okay" I cannot respect at all. Those are inhumane sentiments. We tell people not to be intentionally or grossly irresponsible. Getting behind the wheel of a car and an accident happening is neither, getting behind the wheel of a car drunk is either one or the other. Yes, you should have had oral or anal sex instead. Or you should have layered protection to be even more positive pregnancy could not result.However, I still stand by my position that if she was taking pills as per instructions, you were not really responsible for the pregnancy... it was an accident.Let me point out one thing though. If your "rules" are accurate, then even the pill should be off limits. The pill will allow a woman to lose a fertilized egg, that is it's backup protection. Go find the stats yourself. You are just as capable of finding them as I am. Yes, it's called irony.See most people that are pro-choice are also for reducing the numbers of unwanted pregnancies at the "root" of the problem. They want sex education so dumbasses don't get pregnant through negligence. They want better contraceptives available. Oh, yeah and when someone does get pregnant and decides to have a child, they usually like good healthcare for the woman and the child, even after birth.On the othert hand pro-"Life" people generally want to cut sex education so people don't know how to have sex and not get pregnant, or signifcantly reduce the chance of pregnancy, are for cutting out contraceptive funding and distribution, and when a woman gets pregnant and decides to have a kid, are generally unconcerned about the child after it is ununborn.Ignorance is the root of the problem. Have a light?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

My favorite mantra from a pro-lifer was how Planned Parenthood was a vice of Satan and must be stopped for the good of all. Certainly we must stop immediatly a place that treats women and children they way they do. Providing information and adequate healthcare for people who want to be responsible in their reproductive choices? Damn them all to hell with their evil ways!My favorite thing to ask a pro-life person is when the last time they were foster parents of have adopted a child, especially one with FAS or some other birth defect. I was suprised once by someone who had and that was respectable.Overall though you are 100% dead on about the complete and utter failure of the pro-life movement to hold even the slightest morsel of integrity. They are anti-abortion, anti-reproductive health, anti-post natal support, anti-education, and anti-American.

---

By the way, for a fun second-term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase, "...contentious but futile protest vote by democrats." By the time Jeb Bush is elected president you will be so wasted you wont even notice the war in Syria.
-- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

quote:

---

Overall though you are 100% dead on about the complete and utter failure of the pro-life movement to hold even the slightest morsel of integrity. They are anti-abortion, anti-reproductive health, anti-post natal support, anti-education, and anti-American.

---

Most of all they are anti-woman-as-autonomous-adult.

What I am getting at, is that there is a point at which medical science - as good as it is - is just not capable of guaranteeing the survival of a premature infant, because the fetus is just not developed enough to be a human being, to be blunt about it. That point seems to be around 23 to 24 weeks, even for a healthy fetus.But the flip side of that is that after a healthy fetus has reached the 24th week we should be able to bring it to complete livelyhood if we do need to remove the fetus from the mother for medical reasons.Consider that the fetus is not doing all the growing work itself, it is washed in a bath of enzymes and catalysts and environmental chemicals that all affect the growth, especially at key stages, and that more than 99% of what a fetus is has come from the mother -- the father has contributed 1/2 of one cell: all the rest has come from the mother (each cell has to grow before it can divide, and there are no other resources) -- and any disruption of those key stages can have deleterious implications. Mom could just be a bad enironment, especially for that one fetus (there are instances of genetic incompatability that are bad for both).The ethical questions come in to play when it is known that the fetus is not a normally healthy fetus, and this puts the parents in the same ethical position that people have with a relative on life support: they have to balance their beliefs with the need to continue life support for cellular matter that may not be capable of becoming cognizant no matter how much support is provided, the quality of life issues.Different people will make different choices, and not allowing them to exercise their ethical standard means that one is imposed on them.These have already been hammered out for people of all ages (from preemie to octogenarian) who are on life support, with a program that says it is the appropriate surrogates that get to decide.Congrats on a succesful launch btw.enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.
I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.
I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.
I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.
I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.
I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.
I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.
I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.
I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.
I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.
I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.See if you get it this time.This is the biggest failure in your comments: they do not address the issues, but some warped version of them. This is logically invalid: it is like arguing that the sky is not blue because the grass is green.I use the legal death act to describe the minimum level of existence that can be considered to be a human life.The issue of personhood comes in after that minimum level of existence has been established.Just as the issue of personhood comes into play for people on life support that do not meet the legal requirements for death, but for whom "the lights are on but nobody's home"Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

the bum is a logical extension of your saying that the fetus owns the womb.and for the 18upteenth time:A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support (not knowingly anyway).Let me repeat that a few times to see if you can get it:A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support. A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support. A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support. A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support. A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support.A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support. A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support. A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support. A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support.A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support. A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support. A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support. A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support....You do seem to have problems with the basic concepts here.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I have come to find, through being on abortion threads, and making a fairly successful one myself, for me that is, that you cant generalize abortion to pro-life or pro-choice. It all depends on the individual situation like you said.
why do you generalize though?This message has been edited by chris porcelain, 02-16-2005 21:51 AM

I think you can generalize about the frame within which the debate is valid.As in it is obvious that defining life as {conception} ignores the fact that at least 2/3rds don't make it to week 12 naturally, and thus it is as invalid logically as setting life to start at 10 (self sufficiency).And it is equally obvious that any late term abortion that is done for the mother's health could just as easily be a premature C-section with a possibility of bringing the fetus to term if it is viable.Why does anyone generalize?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

If they do not want kids that bad they can get a vesectomy like me. So you totally missed the logic behind that statement, what else is new? Did you even think before you wrote that statement?
Sex is a normal biological drive for all people?
Bungie jumping is never compared to sex. That is such a rare circumstance, don't you think?
Can't there be programs in place to find those kids homes, or put them up for adoption?Show me the numbers Schraf, because you keep talking about them. The first time, then the risk increases with each abortion. Plus the afer postpartum abotrtion sydrome should be considered. Since we vote on laws governing them. Are you kidding me or what?
Are we all not victims of soceity to a degree? Do we not allow how this soceity rauses our children? (Oh thats right you don't care too much for children).I explained very clearly how what happened to me relates to everyone.
With that kind of attitude or logic, its an all for himself world, that's hardly the case. The forcing was in the ability to have the choice.
I know you won't understand that.
If it's legal it must be OK right? The choice was in having sex. Zero. But, I am the Vice President of Hope for the Nations U.S.
Hope for the Nations
and we build Orphanages around the world, and help children at risk.I am also a supporter of Care-net
Pregnancy Centers | Life Affirming Choices | Pro Abundant Life
My good friend who is a Christian is very involved with that, and we support him.My wife and I have tossed around the idea of adopting another child, I have 5 already, but some things need to be in place first.Life is a blessing, whether you believe in God or not. Just because there is no higher power in life, does it mean it doesn't exist? Even if one doesn't (for your sake) where do we draw the line at playing games with life, or the ability to create life?Surely you value your own life, so you know how precious life is.
I Love my life, and the life of others. I hold it high in value, and that's what concerns me when our world plays games with it.

No, my story asks the question, just haw many woman get an abortion because, well they feel like having kids, but do not want to go througha pregnancy.Can you answer that?

No it cannot, and I am sorry if your offended.Would you share with us what it was like, and what emotional experiences went along with it, or would you prefer not to?