Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (78638)	11/5/2003 2:57:42 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You are confusing several issues. I will try to sort them out. 1) Exception to save the life of the mother is your primary issue. PBA is when the baby is already through the birth canal. What exception are you thinking of that requires the PBA to save the life of the mother. 2) It is not required that a crippled mother be burdened with a baby that she is unable to care for. The mother can choose to give the baby up. 3) The scary prospect is a false dilemma.

To: Lane3 who wrote (78638)	11/5/2003 5:46:29 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

The question is whether a pba is ever necessary to save the life of the mother. If the baby can be partially delivered, then I can't imagine the scenario where it can't be fully delivered and the umbilical cord cut and the baby now either lives or dies on its own. I can't imagine the situation where it's possible to deliver a baby's head but not its body. Doesn't compute for me. The baby has to be withdrawn from the mother's body after it's killed -- why can't it be withdrawn before it's killed? Does anybody know whether there are cogent medical reasons why a PBA would ever be required, in preference to a complete birth, to protect the life of the mother?