juxtablog

Go read Flotsam and uppercasewoman for more. This was a concise and informative comment:

But another blogger writing about this issue (with a perspective similar to Alexa’s) today is Cecily (http://www.uppercasewoman.com/), and she did.

Cecily was 22 weeks pregnant with much-wanted twin boys when she developed pre-eclampsia. By the time this was diagnosed, one of her sons was already dead (of natural causes, i.e., as a result of the pre-eclampsia) in utero. The choices available were as follows:
1. Do nothing, in which case, Cecily dies from pre-eclampsia and her (still living) son dies because his mother’s dead body cannot sustain him.
2. Perform a c-section, in which case, Cecily’s son dies (as he is too young to survive outside her body) and Cecily probably dies (as her pre-eclampsia was severe enough she probably wouldn’t have survived surgery).
3. Perform a dilation and extraction of Cecily’s living and dead son. The living son, again, dies (tragically there is no option available that prevents this); Cecily probably lives (as this surgery places less stress on her body than the c-section).

Now, you write, “I can’t say that death is any way acceptable, but we all will die. But to kill someone, anyone, before it is “their time” is wrong and is murder.”

Certainly I would agree that the death of Cecily’s sons wasn’t “acceptable.” But I reject the idea that her doctor should have been restricted to doing nothing (option 1), the only option available to him that didn’t involve undertaking an action that, itself, would kill at least one person. If I found myself in Cecily’s shoes, given the choice between option (3) — having a doctor kill my son and then removing him from my body (performing an abortion) — and option (2) — removing my son from my body, and thereby causing him to die from the lack of a life support system (performing a c-section, at great risk to the mother’s life, on a fetus too young to survive outside the womb), I’d choose option (3). It happens that Cecily did too, though I’d certainly respect her right not to.

I completely, truly, madly, deeply agree with you that it is tragic that there are times when it is simply not possible to stabilize a mother’s health long enough for her developing baby to achieve viability. But the fact of the matter is, this does happen. If it happened to me, I would abort the fetus to save my own life (after all, if I die, so does the fetus). I respect your right not to make the same choice as I would. Both outcomes — your death and your child’s, given your choice, and my child’s death, but my survival, given mine, would be tragic.

Flotsam » More Wounded than Eloquent, I’m Afraid.

preeclampsia, which causes, by conservative estimates, 76,000 maternal deaths and 500,000 infant deaths worldwide each year.  [Source: Preeclampsia Foundation]

Not only is John McCain saying we shouldn’t have the right to terminate a pregnancy in the event that our lives are at stake, he’s telling us he’s skeptical that that happens at all.

We know better.

a little pregnant: Why no one with a uterus should vote for John McCain