Wednesday, 27 February 2008

The Deception regarding the abortion pill and birth defects....


This may appear to be unrelated to what follows but I remember over twenty years ago my cousin and his wife were expecting their first child - after a scan they were told there was something wrong with the foetus and the G.P. merely passed over an appointment card to consult [what they thought] was a specialist obstetrician - it wasn't ! It was the abortion clinic.
They refused to even consider it ; and subsequently the healthiest of daughters was born, athletic, continually top of her class at school ; so much so that she was even having poetry published in her teens ! We have to ask how many times this happens - and how many confused and distraught women abort because they have been misinformed by the medical profession ?

Read this over at Fr Tim's Hermeneutic of continuity :http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2008/02/disabled-babies-unfounded-predictions.html

STOCKHOLM,Sweden: A Swedish court of appeal on Tuesday sentenced a 27-year-old man to 18 months in prison for trying to make his girlfriend miscarry by mixing abortion pills in her food.
The man, who was not named for legal reasons, had his jail term increased from a previous one-year sentence set by a district court in June.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeal for Western Sweden found the man guilty of aggravated assault for attempting to make his girlfriend of eight years miscarry by giving her a yoghurt containing three ground-up pills. The sentence also included a more minor count of assault.

The court documents said the woman had decided to have the baby even though he felt he was not ready to be a father. The man ordered some pills on the Internet and fooled his doctor into prescribing others for another condition.
The woman ate the yoghurt and suffered severe stomach pains and vaginal bleeding.
When she later realized what she had eaten, she decided to have an abortion, fearing that the foetus had been permanently damaged by the pills.

Now I have to ask the question - why did she abort ?
Now this is what I was going to write in regard to the issue ; after I'd read the regular details on the pro-choice, medical and pro-life sites :

Admittedly there is an increased risk of foetal injury if ru486 is ingested - but with immediate treatment this risk is significantly reduced [especially considering it doesn't work at all in 5% of patients even with prostaglandin, may take 3 days to take affect, some require 4-5 treatments, some studies have it as being only 54% effective without prostaglandin ] in other words the child was alive....and the doctors should have made known to the woman involved that she could most likely have had a healthy child at the end of it; and even then the defects would be handicaps the child could overcome ; and lead a more than normal healthy life.....


UNTIL I ACTUALLY READ FURTHER INTO THE ISSUE - and discovered that this was NOT THE CASE !!!!! The Reason abortion is recommended after the ingestion of RU486 is related to litigation over the potential birth defects - the actual chance of birth defects is exceedingly LOW - and not high as all these sites [including the pro-Life sites] imply - and some research has suggested that the susceptibility to birth defects is caused mainly, if not solely, by the subsequent use of prostaglandin !!! The first two articles speak of the 'legal threat' of potential defects after ingesting RU486 and subsequently wishing to continue with the pregnancy [there's even the suggestions that medical professionals wish to make surgical abortion mandatory if the abortion pill does not work to prevent litigation] But have a look at the last two articles - amidst all the technical details and long words it inadvertently says something really shocking - with immediate progesterone treatment the risks of any birth defect is MINIMAL - it's the use of prostaglandin after RU486 that causes virtually all the defects - and this woman had not received prostaglandin....


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20001024_phelps.html
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=707 http://www.theannals.com/cgi/content/abstract/40/2/191?ck=nck
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10759272

No comments: