PDA

View Full Version : Aborting Viable Lives


Anhelyna
23rd October 2007, 03:18 AM
I make no apology for posting this - it's a topic we all talk about.
I am making no comment on this article - I post it for your reading and reflection. I know it comes from an RC Source - I spotted it a few moments ago and thought it worthy of passing on


Aborting Viable Lives

British Parliament Launches Inquiry on Age Limit

By Father John Flynn, LC
ROME, OCT. 22, 2007 (Zenit.org (http://www.zenit.org/)).- A long-running debate over age limits for abortions was renewed last week in England. Current law allows abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy, but improvements in survival rates for babies born prematurely have led to pressure for the limit to be lowered.
The Abortion Act of 1967 originally set at 28 weeks the legal limit for abortions. Then, in 1990, Parliament agreed to lower the time limit to 24 weeks.
An inquiry into the age limits commenced Oct. 15 by the House of Commons committee on science and technology. The committee Web page noted that the terms of reference for the inquiry do not include the ethical or moral questions related to the debate, but will concentrate on scientific and medical evidence about fetal viability.
One of those backing a reduction in the age limit is obstetrician Stuart Campbell, reported the Telegraph newspaper on Oct. 15. Campbell pioneered three-dimensional scans of fetuses sucking their thumbs and walking in the womb.
Campbell used to perform abortions at 20 weeks, the Telegraph reported. "I feel pretty appalled at the idea that we abort normal babies and most of them are born alive and most of them are allowed to die," he said during a BBC radio program.
The committee's Web site contains several hundred pages of evidence submitted to the inquiry.
A submission from the Department of Health to the committee provided information about abortions in England and Wales. In 2006, there were 193,700 abortions. Of these, 89% were carried out at under 13 weeks of pregnancy.
Out of the total number, 2,948 abortions were performed at 20 weeks and over. Of these, 1,262 were performed at 22 weeks and over, and 136 at 24 weeks and over.
Christian opposition
The Christian Medical Fellowship, an interdenominational Christian organization with more than 4,500 British doctor members, is in favor of a reduction. In its submission to the committee, it outlined a number of concerns related to abortion.
For a start, it argued that maternal mortality after abortion is higher than currently recognized. Moreover, the fellowship noted, strong evidence exists that induced abortion increases risk of premature birth in subsequent pregnancies. Such premature births not only cause neonatal mortality and ongoing disability, but also imply significant economic costs.
There is overwhelming recent evidence that abortion causes significant rates of serious mental health problems, the submission continued. Several studies have demonstrated higher levels of depression, suicidal tendencies, and problems with drug and alcohol use among women who have undergone abortion.
The fellowship also called for Parliament to reconsider the norms for abortions for reasons of fetal abnormality. The upper limit for abortion for disabled babies should not be higher than that for able-bodied babies.
Handicapped
The question of disabled babies being aborted was also raised by the London-based Lejeune Clinic for Children With Down Syndrome. In its submission to the parliamentary committee they said that in 2005 alone, 429 abortions were carried out on babies with Down syndrome. The law sets no time limits for abortions on babies that are held to be disabled.
The clinic also commented that after Down syndrome is detected, some women feel pressured to abort their babies. As well, very few women are offered information on help available to raise a child with the chromosomal disorder.
The submission argued that most children with Down syndrome are happy, sociable and enjoy friendships. Around 80% attend mainstream primary school, either full or part time, and nearly all integrate in a loving fashion into their families. Behavioral problems can occur, but this can be helped, the clinic pointed out.
In its conclusions, the clinic argued: "It is hard to see how the majority of children with Down syndrome fulfill the criteria for abortion on the ground of serious untreatable disability." In fact, the majority suffer from only moderate learning difficulties and treatable physical health problems.
A written submission to the parliamentary committee was also made by the Pro-life Alliance (PLA). It started by noting its objection to any form of intentional abortion, at whatever age limit of the fetus.
Benefit of the doubt
Nevertheless, within the context of the current debate the PLA observed, "At the very least one would expect consensus in the country against the abortion of a viable baby, with the benefit of the doubt always on the side of the baby."
Another pro-life group, also opposed to any form of abortion, which made a submission was the nonprofit organization Comment on Reproductive Ethics (CORE). Opinions over abortion vary widely, it observed, but there is common concern over the rising abortion rates in Britain.
The CORE submission also called for greater transparency about abortions. Currently 97% of all abortions are justified under Ground C of the Abortion Act, which groups together both the medical or psychological health of the mother as a justification. It would be much better, CORE argued, for the two to be separated as they are quite diverse conditions.
It also called for greater transparency for abortions performed on the grounds of fetal abnormality. The submission mentioned the 2001 case of a baby aborted at 7 months for cleft palate, which caused a major public reaction.
After the outcry over this case the government's statistics became notably less specific in identifying details of the abnormalities for which abortions have been performed.
Defending life
A petition for changes in the abortion law also came from Scotland, in the form of an article published in the Scotsman newspaper July 6 by Cardinal Keith O'Brien, archbishop of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh. The Catholic leader called on Prime Minister Gordon Brown to review the law and thus ensure greater respect for human life.
The Scotsman reported that the latest data show that 13,081 abortions were carried out in Scotland in 2006, compared with 12,603 the year before -- the fourth consecutive annual increase.
"Abortion is neither political nor medical, though clearly it has implications in these spheres," the cardinal stated. "It is about morality and the destruction of human life."
Cardinal O'Brien praised Brown for being "a man of principle and deeply held moral convictions," and noted his efforts to reduce poverty in developing nations. He then called on the prime minister to support human life for those who are unborn."What exists in the womb is not 'a potential human being,' but rather 'a human being with potential,'" the cardinal argued.
Not a right
Benedict XVI also had strong words to say recently on protecting unborn life. During his trip to Austria, he addressed the members of government and diplomatic corps Sept. 7.
During his speech, given in the reception hall of Vienna's Hofburg Palace, the Pontiff recalled that Europe is the place where the notion of human rights was first formulated.
"The fundamental human right, the presupposition of every other right, is the right to life itself," the Pope pointed out. "Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right -- it is the very opposite."
Benedict XVI acknowledged the difficulties women experience in going ahead with difficult pregnancies, but at the same time, expressed his concern for the unborn children who have no voice.
He called upon political leaders to help bring about a society that welcomes children and encourages young married couples to start new families. Doing so, the Pope added, requires creating "a climate of joy and confidence in life, a climate in which children are not seen as a burden, but rather as a gift for all." A gift unfortunately too often rejected by society today.



ZE07102201 - 2007-10-22
Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-20804?l=english

buzuxi02
23rd October 2007, 05:01 AM
Since modern medical techniques can uncover whether babies have inherited genetic disorders, basically these techniques are for search and destroy missions.

Then modern medical techniques which demonstrate a baby's viability in the womb should also mean a lowering of the "age limit" as its called.

Regardless, since man has entered an age of immorality, embraced it, fears that his material standard of living will decline with children, etc etc etc etc (i can go on) abortion will continue unhindered and increase. Dont be surprised that within 100 years homo sapiens will be sterilized and must "order" their babies thru test tubes (or whatever other techniquw invented) So they can be "perfectly healthy" and be to the parents liking. And yes society will give the OK, what better than choosing your childs DNA thru a checklist covering every aspect of his genetics. Not to mention authorites can make sure would be parents can financially afford to raise a child. The government vetoing your checklist, if your finances dont work out, "for your own good". Get Ready its around the corner.

Oblio
23rd October 2007, 08:22 AM
Since modern medical techniques can uncover whether babies have inherited genetic disorders, basically these techniques are for search and destroy missions.


Indeed, this is the thrust behind research into Down Syndrome early detection. There are now 'optional' (yet recommended) hormonal tests and the nuchal fold test (@ IIRC 12 wks). The logic is that the earlier one can detect DS, the easier it is to convince the parents to kill their child.

prodromos
23rd October 2007, 08:59 AM
Indeed, this is the thrust behind research into Down Syndrome early detection. There are now 'optional' (yet recommended) hormonal tests and the nuchal fold test (@ IIRC 12 wks). The logic is that the earlier one can detect DS, the easier it is to convince the parents to kill their child.
Not to mention the fact that false positives do occur.

Oblio
23rd October 2007, 09:03 AM
The common blood test has a huge false positive rate, and the rate goes up with the age of the mother :doh:. If the test were for any other reason than to cull undesirable children, I doubt that it would be used diagnostically.

Xpycoctomos
23rd October 2007, 11:00 AM
Anyela, why would you think you would have to make apologies for posting this?

Kristos
23rd October 2007, 11:04 AM
I just took it as another peice of information - like is it a boy or a girl, so we could be prepared...

Anhelyna
23rd October 2007, 11:15 AM
Some people find topics like this objectionable - I don't , I feel it should be discussed.

I was struck by the reported comment from one doctor Campbell used to perform abortions at 20 weeks, the Telegraph reported. "I feel pretty appalled at the idea that we abort normal babies and most of them are born alive and most of them are allowed to die," he said during a BBC radio program.

There is a lot of info in this report and it deserves to be widely read.

Xpycoctomos
23rd October 2007, 11:18 AM
Are you referring to amniosentisis (sp?). If so, know that those are dangerous and do but the baby at risk of spontaneously aborting. I don't think there is anythig wrong with finding out info early so a couple can prepare, read up on iunformation and get informed (although for practical reason in our abortion happy society I am actually against it... but that's only because a lot of abbaies lose their lives because of the option... kind of like why finding out the sex of the baby in China is illegal because A LOT of girls would be aborted... so, with good r4eason it's illegal there), but not if it puts your child at risk.

Sorry if that is not what you or anyone else was referring to.

Xpy

Xpycoctomos
23rd October 2007, 11:19 AM
Anyhela,
I don't think that is so in this forum... and if so, that is definitely the majority and I think most people here would be comfused as to why they felt this way.

elizabethevangeline
23rd October 2007, 11:27 AM
I just took it as another peice of information - like is it a boy or a girl, so we could be prepared...
When I was pregnant with my 2nd, the midwife decided we needed to check for clefting (I had a cleft lip). Sure enough, a fancy ultrasound showed that my son indeed had some clefting...so when he was born with a cleft lip only we were "that's it? great!" instead of "what's wrong with him?!" So in our case pre-birth diagnosis was a benefit and we were prepared for worse health issues than really existed. (tho I wonder if my stress level during pregnancy might explain my son's intensity sometimes :)). I don't remember ever feeling like we should consider aborion, but I think the midwife let me know it was an option....

After the diagnosis I did lots of research on clefting. At one popular site for clefting and related syndroms, it was the general consensus that the March of Dimes claim to "reduce birth defects by early detection" means detect birth defects early enough to terminate.

Philothei
23rd October 2007, 12:08 PM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Oblio again.

Sorry could not rep...

Philothei

Philothei
23rd October 2007, 12:17 PM
I was born with a congenital birth mark too.... My parents would have kept me no matter what. Also I believe in non-invasive medical means to find out pre-existing conditions. but.... amne can cause miscarriage... and like other said the tests are not acurate anyhow. So what is the point? More money and anguish for the parents... Some researchering team got some grants to work on that and they came up with "some" positive results.... My condition was important and serious and I survived even if they found out after the fact. Even the cleft lip or pallete which are very common (1 in 500) are treatable our times and docs shoud just warn all parents about it. It may show or may not show in the ultrasound like so many other conditions and defects...There have been generations of worried parents they survived it.... why we are so different that it is important to "know" what to expect. When I was pregnant I was so upset with my geneticist... who pretty much worried about everything... I had a total normal child and they also apologized to us for the confusion. In the bottom line they created to us more stress than necessary.....

God bless,
Philothei

Orthosdoxa
23rd October 2007, 12:45 PM
You'll never need to apologize for defending life here, Anhelyna.

We've recently been talking about the sad case of a woman I know on another board who became pregnant with triplets - she didn't want three, just two, so she aborted one, said she had no emotion for it, but just loves her remaining two to pieces! It's just so sad. And as buxi said, it's only going to get worse.

PS - ironically, she recently made a post saying that infant baptism was morally wrong, because parents should not impose their religion on their children. :doh: (But evidently she has no problem imposing a needle full of poison on them. :thumbsup:)

Thekla
23rd October 2007, 12:54 PM
PS - ironically, she recently made a post saying that infant baptism was morally wrong, because parents should not impose their religion on their children. :doh: (But evidently she has no problem imposing a needle full of poison on them. :thumbsup:) :o

Philothei
23rd October 2007, 01:16 PM
You'll never need to apologize for defending life here, Anhelyna.

We've recently been talking about the sad case of a woman I know on another board who became pregnant with triplets - she didn't want three, just two, so she aborted one, said she had no emotion for it, but just loves her remaining two to pieces! It's just so sad. And as buxi said, it's only going to get worse.

PS - ironically, she recently made a post saying that infant baptism was morally wrong, because parents should not impose their religion on their children. :doh: (But evidently she has no problem imposing a needle full of poison on them. :thumbsup:)
Then I guess she will not have aproblem if her son or daughter becomes a muslim ... right ?

Anhelyna
23rd October 2007, 02:16 PM
My only apology is really that this came from Zenit an RC Site .

However all the info on here is correct and has been drawn so well together - there are plenty of arguments against abortion - and plenty of statements from Clergy who are against it .

I'm sure people know where my sympathies lie - BUT at the same time when I was nursing I was always angry with my fellow nurses who refused to care for those having abortions - they said [ correctly ] it was murder but they never ever thought / wondered what had brought the woman to the stage that she took this terrible step. I felt it was right to nurse them and care for them.

I would not wish abortion on my worst enemy.

TrueHope
23rd October 2007, 02:54 PM
It took me a while to respond to this thread, as this has been a rough week here with prayer on this subject.

I think you nursing those who had abortions, rather than huffing about it, was a proper and Christ like thing to do. No one does know a person's reasons. Many selfish, and unbelievably, often times a form of selfish birth "Control" ( We will not discuss the number my sis-in-law has had due to refusing to use protection....Ahem)

Some cases, certainly are extreme...life and death....

As for the issue of DS. In my lifetime, I worked a short while with the SWEETEST, happiest, loving chidren/men and women who had DS. Ok, one was a pervert, but the rest...Really really great experience!!! What people do not realize is that if a child is born with an abnormality, that may be the greatest GIFT that GOD has given that family. Many families have come to Christ because of a family member who had serious deformities, sickness, DS etc. For what they saw in that child, or brother, sister....no-one else they knew had it. Pure, unconditional love!

Sigh.....thanks for sharing that.

elizabethevangeline
23rd October 2007, 03:45 PM
I was born with a congenital birth mark too.... My parents would have kept me no matter what. Also I believe in non-invasive medical means to find out pre-existing conditions. but.... amne can cause miscarriage... and like other said the tests are not acurate anyhow. So what is the point? More money and anguish for the parents... Some researchering team got some grants to work on that and they came up with "some" positive results.... My condition was important and serious and I survived even if they found out after the fact. Even the cleft lip or pallete which are very common (1 in 500) are treatable our times and docs shoud just warn all parents about it. It may show or may not show in the ultrasound like so many other conditions and defects...There have been generations of worried parents they survived it.... why we are so different that it is important to "know" what to expect. When I was pregnant I was so upset with my geneticist... who pretty much worried about everything... I had a total normal child and they also apologized to us for the confusion. In the bottom line they created to us more stress than necessary.....

God bless,
Philothei

I agree...when I was pregnant with my 1st I was asked if I wanted an amnio and I asked if it would ID anything that should be treated in the womb...of course "no" was the answer. Then what is the point (agenda) indeed?

Re: clefting. Can you imagine suggesting to a woman with a cleft lip that a cleft is cause for aborting a baby with a cleft?! :doh: (my midwife didn't). My cleft was such a non-issue that I didn't even identify myself as being born with a defect until I found out my unborn child was inheriting it from me.

Oblio
23rd October 2007, 03:54 PM
I have heard (2nd hand, reliably) of an abortion suggested due to a cleft lip/palate detected via US. The child was born with almost no cleft, she might have required minor surgery later, but I can't recall that info.

Philothei
23rd October 2007, 04:09 PM
Oh I believe it Oblio. Anything peculiar that a child might be born that could be a case of ....malpractice and can go to court ... they would suggest abortion.... It is a better solution for them...it is a well known fact that they try to "avoid" lawsuits by suggesting abortion... Even having a C-section, that is so much practiced today, is the result of the same reasoning. My MIL waited about 4 days after her water broke to give birth... now they say that they are afraid of infection and give you 24 hours otherwise they induce or if they even have a "slight" chance the child will get "stuck" (like mine) they use the C-section. This has contribute to the rise of the number of births with C-section....
I think we are way too much "intervining" with God's plan and creation...
God bless,
Philothei

TrueHope
23rd October 2007, 04:12 PM
I have heard (2nd hand, reliably) of an abortion suggested due to a cleft lip/palate detected via US. The child was born with almost no cleft, she might have required minor surgery later, but I can't recall that info.
I find such suggestions ...I don't have a proper word to type here for what I think of such suggestions, Lord, forgive me.:holy:

I read several months ago of some pact or something or other that physicians have...(Not all mind you) to reduce the population. Whether it is true or not...the fact that it was written and even a thought...is bothersome. But, if true, in theory, it holds weight because look at how they push abortions for the slightest thing. I suppose the designer baby didn't take off, so the next best thing is to have a baby halocaust in the wombs...Grrrr.:mad:

TrueHope
23rd October 2007, 04:22 PM
Oh I believe it Oblio. Anything peculiar that a child might be born that could be a case of ....malpractice and can go to court ... they would suggest abortion.... It is a better solution for them...it is a well known fact that they try to "avoid" lawsuits by suggesting abortion... Even having a C-section, that is so much practiced today, is the result of the same reasoning. My MIL waited about 4 days after her water broke to give birth... now they say that they are afraid of infection and give you 24 hours otherwise they induce or if they even have a "slight" chance the child will get "stuck" (like mine) they use the C-section. This has contribute to the rise of the number of births with C-section....
I think we are way too much "intervining" with God's plan and creation...
God bless,
Philothei
I did a research paper on C-sections back in HS. It was a 30 year study on people who were born naturally and those who were c-sections. The C-sections were more insecure, more likely to have weight problems, more likely to stay at home until they are married...or just stay with the parents...FOREVER...not stable in keeping jobs, etc. (Not all the c-section people...but a high percentage) Now, the natural birth...subjects, we will call them...were the opposite, minus a few. Secure, confident, in shape, worked hard, for career, and family, moved out at a reasonable age, pursued educations etc.

If this case study is indeed factual, then we will have worse problems. My 2nd child is a c-section baby...and she fits most of the categories. My 1st was all natural....and though insecure in many ways, very strong, diligent, hard working, and though a lazy typical teen, still shows signs of strong character and how she will be in her future. My 3rd...still my baby...very secure, very focused, more so than the other 2...we shall see about the rest.

So ....in conclusion to my silly HS paper theory here....if the world ends up filled with babies that grow to be like my 2nd, as sweet and loving as she is...we are in trouble! lol....Just kidding...she is too young to cast any judgment...

but on the studies....I remember my reaction was....well....I started asking the lazy, smart mouthers in my classes if they were c-section! LOL.

Oblio
23rd October 2007, 06:09 PM
Oh I believe it Oblio. Anything peculiar that a child might be born that could be a case of ....malpractice and can go to court ... they would suggest abortion.... It is a better solution for them...it is a well known fact that they try to "avoid" lawsuits by suggesting abortion...


I'm sure you have heard of the lawsuits brought by parents and children themselves against medical practitioners because they allowed a 'defective' child to be born.

Philothei
23rd October 2007, 06:23 PM
Yes, I am aware but that still does not justify pro-abortion propaganda...either. All medical practice has its risks and be 'cautious" doen't ....justify pushing and abortion to avoid a lawsuit just is not right....:(... I am very upset for all gynecologists and their "imoral" practices..."pushing" all these practices so they are covered legally.

Philothei

Dorothea
23rd October 2007, 06:50 PM
Since modern medical techniques can uncover whether babies have inherited genetic disorders, basically these techniques are for search and destroy missions.


Yep. Totally agree.

Orthosdoxa
23rd October 2007, 08:13 PM
I'm sure you have heard of the lawsuits brought by parents and children themselves against medical practitioners because they allowed a 'defective' child to be born.

And sometimes (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/lesbian-sues-over-ivf-twins/2007/09/18/1189881493520.html) when they're not even 'defective'. :sick::sick::sick:

Oblio
23rd October 2007, 08:18 PM
She and her partner, who were living in Watson at the time, had planned to go to England after the birth, but their plans were scrapped when they discovered they would be having twins, jeopardising their careers, relationship and health.


I guess they forgot to read the job description of being 'parents' before they applied for the position. :doh:


She suffered pre- and post-natal depression, could work only a few hours at a time because of the pain, and she and her partner needed relationship counselling for about 18 months.


Poor dears



"We argued and we had a terrible time with the stress of what we had expected to be a time of great joy."


I'm sure glad we have no stress due to our children.


They also had to confront the options of aborting one of the embryos, or giving up one of the children for adoption. They decided to keep both children as an abortion would have put the other child at risk, and adoption would have been too painful.

Me, me, me ...

pjw
24th October 2007, 02:25 AM
I'm just glad my mum didn't decide to abort me when she found out at 12 weeks that she had another placenta growing in the uterus and taking all the nutrition from me.

Xpycoctomos
24th October 2007, 06:44 AM
My only apology is really that this came from Zenit an RC Site .

However all the info on here is correct and has been drawn so well together - there are plenty of arguments against abortion - and plenty of statements from Clergy who are against it .

I'm sure people know where my sympathies lie - BUT at the same time when I was nursing I was always angry with my fellow nurses who refused to care for those having abortions - they said [ correctly ] it was murder but they never ever thought / wondered what had brought the woman to the stage that she took this terrible step. I felt it was right to nurse them and care for them.

I would not wish abortion on my worst enemy.
Personally I don't care if it comes from an RC site. I think the RCC, when used and not abused, does a fantastic job at defending the unborn and are our most vocal partner in the fight for life.

Re the nurse thing... that's when people lose site of the Right to Life cause. It becomes nothing more than an emotional political stance and soon people forget why it even matters. They think somehow they are proven someone by hating those who abort. A lot of those same people (men and women alike) don't even truly understand the situations those women were in. Doesn't make it excusable, but to act as if slighting them and neglecting them is doing God's worth is really just the product of haughtiness and pride in its worst form.

Xpy

Xpycoctomos
24th October 2007, 07:03 AM
I did a research paper on C-sections back in HS. It was a 30 year study on people who were born naturally and those who were c-sections. The C-sections were more insecure, more likely to have weight problems, more likely to stay at home until they are married...or just stay with the parents...FOREVER...not stable in keeping jobs, etc. (Not all the c-section people...but a high percentage) Now, the natural birth...subjects, we will call them...were the opposite, minus a few. Secure, confident, in shape, worked hard, for career, and family, moved out at a reasonable age, pursued educations etc.

If this case study is indeed factual, then we will have worse problems. My 2nd child is a c-section baby...and she fits most of the categories. My 1st was all natural....and though insecure in many ways, very strong, diligent, hard working, and though a lazy typical teen, still shows signs of strong character and how she will be in her future. My 3rd...still my baby...very secure, very focused, more so than the other 2...we shall see about the rest.

So ....in conclusion to my silly HS paper theory here....if the world ends up filled with babies that grow to be like my 2nd, as sweet and loving as she is...we are in trouble! lol....Just kidding...she is too young to cast any judgment...

but on the studies....I remember my reaction was....well....I started asking the lazy, smart mouthers in my classes if they were c-section! LOL.
That sounds like a lot of correlation with little reason behind it. What reason did they give for thinking that this was happening. It's very possible that this is a great example of when correlation doesn't prove causation. Maybe I'm wrong. It's interesting that this correlation existed... but I would be curious on several things: were these elective c-sections? Who was making the choice? Were these babies to term? Past term? What proportion of them were early/to/past term babies compared to those who had vaginal births? What kind of drugs were used at the time of the conception? Where was this study done and does health care in that country dictate the choices made and, then, if so, do these correlate with any socio-economical factors (again, just correation, but perhaps a little easier to explain theories on why people might grow up this way)... and, well, how big was study group?

Now, if this was back in HS, there have probably been other similar studies done in other countries since then and it would be interesting to see them. (note to other in regard to the age thread... see? It helped that I knew she was 38.. because if she were 19 I would assume not much had changed since then. Just thought I would throw that in there ;))

Xpy

TrueHope
24th October 2007, 09:06 AM
(note to other in regard to the age thread... see? It helped that I knew she was 38.. because if she were 19 I would assume not much had changed since then. Just thought I would throw that in there ;))

Xpy


LOL...Well, if you think about it, if it was a 30 year study, then they would have started...Lets see, I was 16-17------That was the year 87.....So, needless to say....I wouldn't hold too much on it, however, I get a kick out of it, because with a few people I know who were c-sections...and friends I know who had them...they do tend to act like the typical C...or I am just noticing! LOL. I don't hold much weight, and that was so long ago...but if for some reason, it were to ring true...and c-sections vs. natural birth are much more common....we could probably watch a decline in certain areas....that is IF it stands ground....I wish I could remember even the names of the researchers....but I left HS in HS...and moved on! LOL

Matrona
24th October 2007, 09:12 AM
I'm sure glad we have no stress due to our children.

^_^ :D