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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (178048)	11/16/2003 3:10:43 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576628

tell us your position on killing unborn children. Do you disagree with Bush? I do! So does Mrs. Bush. What do you want to do about it?!!

To: steve harris who wrote (178048)	11/16/2003 8:48:42 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576628

Out of the picture on the abortion ban boston.com Al

To: steve harris who wrote (178048)	11/17/2003 5:58:00 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576628

Steve, RE: "tell us your position" I seriously think partisan needs to be put aside. Understanding whether or not the law produces a lower or higher number of loss in life, is important - this is what I would like to know. This data has not been presented - because both parties are involved in partisan fighting, rather than getting the actual data so that everyone can be more informed and make the right decision. I've made a small donation to an organization that one hopes will try to get a handle on the data. If flu shots kill 2000 people, we still need to know how many people would be killed without flu shots (80,000). How many more unborn children will be killed as a result of a law that discourages doctors from encouraging suddenly ill mothers to take on the risk to go to full-term? How many more early stage abortions will this law create? And how many expectant seriously ill mothers will be killed due to intensive surgery and anesthetic that they could not bare, but required since the law doesn't include a clause protecting the life of the mother? How many more will die with this law? Doctors are conservative people. They try to avoid lawsuits. A young doctor can refuse to perform surgery on a pregnant mother that has a gall bladder issue, and can demand the older partner - who is almost done with his career- to perform it instead. OBGYN is one of the highest malpractice areas. If a lawsuit ensues, an older doctor is at the end of his career anyway, while the younger doctor is at the beginning of his career and has too much of his career left to risk if something goes wrong. Doctors like to avoid risk. Some do not even want to perform heuristics - unless it is to save a family member - or - someone who has given them written guidance to do so. Of particular interest, are those certain illnesses that can get triggered by pregnancy into life-threatening situations - Lupus, Polymitr., and others within these autoimmune diseases. These illnesses are for the most part, not well-understood. But we do know these autoimmune illnesses attack an extremely large disproportionate number of women than men. I believe 60% to 80% of those with these classes of autoimmune illnesses are women. And the medical community, which is currently dominated by men, has in my opinion seriously neglected this area of medical research. They cannot treat what they cannot see. They cannot see, because they do not apply research to "see." (An intuitive person can detect the warning signs of these illnesses in a relative during the early stages, though today's current medical tools do not provide this capability. They actually could do RND to create such a diagnostic tool - a tool that is forward looking rather than a backwards looking blood test.) The medical community is focused on backwards treating rather than forward-moving detection & prevention. We are not an intuitive society focused on early detection or prevention. If we are not intuitive - we do not see what can be created so our society doesn't fully realize it can create such tools. Ultra early detection is currently out of the question. This means, a pregnancy can become life-threatening. Combine this with the conservative nature of doctors and you have a situation where it is possible that more abortions may actually occur at the earlier stages, rather than adopting a more riskier "wait and see" - due to the new law that essentially prohibits doctors from taking a "wait and see" approach, in those patients that may not be able to handle full term or c-section. The doctor wants to maximize the chances of the unborn children, but this law flies in the face of a doctor's goal to keep the pregnancy going - only because it excludes a clause protecting the mother's life and health. The doctor may be forced to abort, just because the "wait and see" option that encourages the chances of the unborn, has been made illegal. Ironically, increasing the number of abortions rather than decreasing them. When creating law, one has to think like a doctor. So, while we all would want to save 2000 lives - we still have to ask, does it really? I'm not convinced it will. I would need more data. I think the risks are incredibly higher that we'll see more early stage abortions - because doctor's can no longer "wait and see" - they will be forced to abort if there's any health risk to the mother in the early stage, rather than "waiting and seeing". Waiting and seeing, is a formula that could very well be maximizing the chances of life of the unborn child. Our new law may not. I do not have an opinion on the law until data is assembled that shows how many more lives will be lost due to the new law. One has to make an assessment and figure out which is less. Lastly, this decision should really influenced by the anethesiologist because these are the folks who are trying to maximize all lives and they are on the line to save lives during a surgery and can have a better assessment as to who can handle surgery and who cannot. Legislation should never take control away from an anethesioligist who is maximizing all chances of living. On another note, one of my friend's graduate projects involved a research thesis study on more than 100 women who had abortions. I was curious as to why women would have an abortion, so overnight I read all the data and assisted her in detecting a pattern (math being my strength, sociology being hers). I observed an unusually high number of ultra conservative unmarried couples that had an abortion due to "we were unmarried but are extremely religious so don't believe in sex before marriage but goofed and the people in our church, mosque, temple, etc. and our parents wouldn't understand and would reject us." I learned this is why advertising dollars are focused on placing flyers in venues such as churches, mosques or temples - to reach ultra, ultra conservative people who are at risk. I had wondered why they placed these types of flyers in religious places rather than bars, and always thought it was a bit unusual to see them in religious places, but my friend's research project certainly made it clear why they do that. What's amazing to me, is how ultra conservative people tend to lack the awareness that they are hugely the abortion problem. I believe this new law has the risk of increasing abortions, due to the conservative nature of doctors. Doctors are not entrepreneurs - they are risk adverse, not risk takers. When making a law - a person needs to understand not only how doctor's think and the negative impact of such a law but also have an awareness of the lack of medical research on women illnesses that are not yet underway - it may actually create more killings of unborn children, and women. Our society considers we've performed our medical research for women, just because we have given breast cancer the attention it deserves. Nevermind the fact that how you detect a women with a heart illness is much different than in men. Our science is unfortunately much too focused on only one gender, namely because the medical community is not diverse, so they are missing some of their target. I would also bet you that there are some anesthesiologists that are actually clueless to some of the more women-oriented illnesses. Regards, Amy J