Abortion and abortion’s apologists have succeeded in twisting and distorting even a once-objective, just-the-facts, and statistically-oriented discipline as Public Health. In the not-so distant past, pregnancy was defined in medical textbooks as the result of fertilization of egg by sperm. Now it’s defined as implantation of the embryo in the uterus. Semantics? Hardly.
This represents a fundamental shift that protects the in vitro fertilization industry. If pregnancy is defined by implantation, then there is hardly an ethical hurdle when it comes to sifting through dozens of embryo’s in search of the ‘most fit’. Some might call them ‘keepers’. The rest may simply be discarded.
The in vitro fertilization industry and its related embryonic stem cell research industry, which makes use of ‘leftover’ embryos in frozen storage, serve as a bulwark for abortion, appealing to utilitarian sentiments regarding the alleviation of emotional and physical suffering, respectively.
Even defining something as simple as infant mortality has become a semantic three-ring circus.
Case in point: CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics released a study this past November entitled, Behind International Rankings of Infant Mortality: How the United States Compares with Europe. The Bottom line is that the U.S. ranks 30/31 nations in the study in infant mortality rates.
A look at figure #1 in the study doesn’t inspire confidence as the study bills itself as a comparison between the U.S. and Europe, but goes on to include Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Cuba.
Table #1 inspires even less confidence as it details what constitutes ‘live births’ in the countries under study. The following countries take the most expansive definition of ‘live birth’ to include any birth of a living baby without regard to gestational age:
Austria, Denmark, England and Wales, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Northern Ireland, Portugal, Scotland, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, United States.
Norway, Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland are listed as having varying reporting criteria, including a 500 gram birthweight, gestational age, and in the Czech Republic, the added requirement that the infant survives the first 24 hours.
No mention at all of the remaining 12 countries in the study.
Additionally, the study claims, “Differences in national birth registration notwithstanding, there can also be individual differences between physicians or hospitals in the reporting of births for very small infants who die soon after birth.”
It’s difficult to compare nations to one another when the very definition of ‘live birth’ is up for grabs, when different nations take a more or less aggressive approach to saving the life of the neonate.
These approaches also have much top do with who is paying the bill. Governments with socialized medicine and flat economies have a powerful disincentive to attempt aggressive, costly life-saving measures, and may well be more apt to recommend abortion in cases where fetal anomalies are detected, further skewing the data.
Of course this study neglects to mention those realities.
They’re not politically correct.
Gerard one could just as easily argue that countries with public health care might have a LOWER rate of abortion in cases of fetal anomalies because parents all have health care coverage an. Do not have to worry about their child being uninsurable. This might explain the lower rate of abortion following DS diagnosis in Canada than the US.
In France, my two great-nieces were not considered premature because they each weighed 3 kilos although they were in incubators and on oxygen. Their mother is an RN.
Our daughter just had her first sonogram, (Merry Christmas YAY), at just 2 months and a half. A pro “choicer” it’s odd to hear her talk about her baby! Why so early? They will pressure her to abort if “things” don’t look good. Next obligatory sonogram is in 6 weeks. Pray the baby is healthy.
Health-care is heavily subsidized in France and they’re pushing women to have babies, with lengthy maternity leaves, child care, substantial subsidies for the 3rd child, etc. but they need healthy warm bodies to take care of their aging population – not defectives. They are aborting most of the Down Syndrome babies in France.
They induce or do C-sections and episiotomies are common. Why inductions and sections? They only have so many beds and they’ve reserved one for you on such and such a date plus if you’re due in July or August half the doctors are on vacation. Pasteur is rolling in his grave.
To save money the French government didn’t buy an American test for HIV so thousands of hemophiliacs died. A test whose patent holder is French was expected “momentarily”. Two doctors did some jail time and paid some fines but the Health Minister, Edith Cresson, and some other minister (Interior?), Laurent Fabius, waltzed away with absoultely no penalty.
Colonoscopies aren’t done unless there is a reason. There are other tests and procedures that are rationed – I could go on.
As the good doctor pointed out, you cannot get an honest assessment of a medical system run by government bureaucrats because every one plays cover their fanny.
Gerard you might be interested to learn that the abortion figures for Canada and the US for Down Syndrome babies are virtually identical.
England which has socialized medicine has an even higher abortion rate for Down Syndrome babies – at 94%.
I believe Spain also has a form of socialized health care and their Down Syndrome abortion rate is 95%.
I would say that it is the expectation of modern parents to have the “perfect” baby that is the most important factor.
If anything, socialized medicine will enable these parents achieve their “dream” of that perfect baby.😦
i love it plz visit my blog i invite you.