Communicator (communicator) wrote,
Communicator
communicator

Disgusting

Last year on this blog I posted something about the partial birth abortion ban, which Bush had just signed. I said that, although the procedure sounded ghastly, it was sometimes necessary to surgically remove a child from the uterus, very late in pregnancy, and that doctors should continue to have access to this grim procedure, because the alternatives were even more grim.

A very eloquent woman has now posted of her experiences, walking around for a week with a dead foetus inside her, bleeding profusely, and finding no doctor willing to remove the corpse.

On my fourth morning, with the bleeding and cramping increasing, I couldn’t wait any more. I called my doctor and was told that since I wasn’t hemorrhaging, I should not come in. Her partner, on call, pedantically explained that women can safely lose a lot of blood, even during a routine period.

How does this help anybody?

Via respectful of otters

(Since then, by the way, I have discovered that gynecological procedures are somewhat different between Europe and US, so there isn't a direct analogy between what we do and what has been banned - it doesn't really affect the issue)


Incidentally, this has made me think again about a philosophical issue which I think has quite wide implications: to what extent should the fact that you think something is disgusting or repulsive influence whether you think it is right or wrong. Sometimes disgust is a good indicator for avoidance, but sometimes visceral disgust is just an unexamined prejudice. Wombs are disgusting, blood is disgusting, dead babies are disgusting. So make this woman suffer.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic
  • 7 comments