Rancid wrote:Bullshit.
Complications during birthing are almost never an extreme emergency. Moving to a hospital from home during some issue usually doesn't result in any negative affects to mother or baby.
Really? Where did you get your MD, where did you go to get your OBGyn residency?
Also, i like how you use "usually". I wonder if you would be so liberal about a procedure that "usually" does not cause impotence. Would you join my clinical study regarding weekly examination of the bladder with a cystoscope? It "usually" does not give you impotence. It "usually" does not give you an UTI, it "usually" does not kill people.
I feel very strongly about people that have a strong position about issues for which they do not have to suffer the bulk of the consequences (for instance, mostly males making decision regarding reproductive freedom/rights of the mother.) I did say earlier that I don't feel strongly against this because 1: THE MOTHER, more than anyone one else, must be FULLY AWARE of the risks, benefits and ALTERNATIVES, 2:On careful selected patients the risk is relatively low, 3: If we had a more robust system, like for instance the UK, data does suggest that we should not expect any major difference in outcomes (assuming that UK population is representative of the US, this is a relatively decent assumption but has to be taken with a grain of salt, for instance if in the UK the rate of gestational diabetes is significantly lower than the US< and, we know GD can lead to macrosomia [LARGE BABIES] this could make their data non-applicable to our population.
Unfortunately, the article that I have in mind was in one of the 2014-2016 editions and I lost it when I moved. I'd have to check online to see if I find the same article again. But still we do have additional evidence that suggest, that at least in the US, Planned-out-of-hospital birth carry a small, but significantly increased risks of adverse events.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1501738[quote = "Victoribus Spolia "] Likewise, the question of parental rights also needs to be addressed. [/quote]
This is an important and interesting question indeed. Especially, because I do think the woman should keep the ultimate final say on this. However, it is a decision that it is best done as a shared decision making. This includes the mother, the father and the doctor/midwife. A potential father should probably have this decision before even planning a baby if the values of the mother points towards a unconvertional decision (e.g. out of hospital birth in a country where it is not traditionally done) as so the potential father can also have a say, or even completely decline participating in the conception of this baby if he does not agree (i think this would never happen by the way, but this discussion could lead to identifying ideological differences that would make a long-time relationship ill-advised). As a man and potential father I must admit I would feel betrayed and powerless of my wife were to take the decision to have a baby at home rather than go to the hospital without my support. For one, I would also have to suffer some of the consequences would this go wrong. Thus, having the discussion is certainly the way to go.
This is, however something that could not be enforced in any way shape or form. You cannot simply stop a woman from having a baby if she happens to go into labor at the wrong time or in the wrong place. There have been reports of women given birth in the toilet or even in their sleep....
Actually if this is your point. The abortion debate is completely different. Abortion is about women's right not about babie's. From a purely logical perspective, she has a parasite in her body (fetus) and she does not want to have the parasite (which eventually becomes a child) and thus she wants it out. The parasite, if it could live without the mother, could and should be allowed to live. This is why abortion, even for those in favor of it, does usually come with an arbitrary time period at which it can be done legally (as to release us from the moral guilt from potentially "killing" a baby the closer to delivery it is). Early on (first few weeks) we are talking about a clump of cells not much different from a banana, the dilemma really comes into consideration when the fetus approaches an age that it would be viable with assistance (e.g. NICU care, medicines, surgery, etc) which now its just over 20weeks but realistically 23-25w++.
An even more interesting conversation. What would be your position if the woman that is pregnant, 1 week into her pregnancy decides she does not want to have a baby. Lets assume in this case that we had the technology to safely remove the embryo and put it in an artificial woumb for growth. In this theoretical case, the woman could either:
1. have the pregnancy
2. have an abortion
3. safely remove the embryo and artificially grow it
Now, lets assume that safely removing embryo is, in this case, not anymore expensive, dangerous, time-consuming, painful or even has sequelae for the future. For the sake of this conversation, let's assume that it is, from the point of view of the woman, exactly the same.
In this case, would you be in favor of outlawing abortion, knowing that you, as a taxpayer would be responsible for every child produced in this way for welfare, healthcare, education?
I asked a specific question, if you let your child climb a tree, and he falls and dies, should you be charged with criminal neglect. Yes or No?
Actually this depends on the context, and the answer might, actually be yes in some cases. If you let your child 6 year old play with his bike in the highway or even a busy street you are almost ganrateed to be charged. If you let your child go climb a very large tree, you might in fact also be responsible or even charged if you knew/saw it. Parents get charged on accidental deaths all the time. The context matter.