[PLUG-TALK] Malpractice (3)

Michael Robinson robinsom at robinson-west.com
Tue Sep 7 13:12:59 PDT 2004

On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 07:22, Keith Lofstrom wrote:
> Not directly related to our big political question of who gets the ax,
> but related to my earlier statements about prenatal health care and
> child survival.
> I just read a bio-engineering article about failure mechanisms and 
> their relation to lifespan in humans.  A couple of Russian engineers
> wrote about factors that affect lifespan, and how they can be modelled
> similarly to the failure rates of highly redundant and highly defective
> engineered systems.  It turns out that lifespan is a function of diet,
> genes and so forth, but it is very strongly influenced by fetal health.
> We start dying, not in middle age or even at birth, but a few months
> into gestation.  For example, a female fetus has 6 million egg cells
> in the middle of the first trimester, dropping to 1 million at birth
> and 400K at the beginning of puberty, declining to few survivors at
> menopause.  
> This ties in with work computer-modelling fetal heart growth at
> OHSU.  The researchers are learning is that very small improvements
> in embryonic heart health can have massive effects on the longevity
> of the heart in old age.  Others are learning that an adequate
> supply of folic acid and other nutrients during certain stages of
> pregnancy can make large reductions in birth defects, and leave
> the organs in much better shape to survive in old age.  A few
> pennies worth of vitamins for Mom for a few weeks during pregnancy
> can do more for heart health than thousands of dollars worth of
> heart drugs and surgery 80 years later.
> So just think, for the cost of just a few lawsuits against OBs, or
> alternatively the cost of a few hundred abortion clinic bombs, 
> either the ambulance chasers or the radical fundies could finance
> the health and survival of millions of children.  I wonder which
> group will be the first drop their attacks long enough to seize this
> great opportunity save lives, reduce pain, and lower medical costs.

Doesn't killing abortion doctors make for an inconsistent pro-life
statement?  Ya know, if you can affect heart health shortly after
conception, who is to say that the human diet doesn't begin at
conception?  The pro-life movement isn't largely about killing
abortion doctors, it's about beating a law in Portland, OR that 
says no protests even if they are prayers offered across the 
street from the LoveJoy clinic.  If there really is a choice,
than there has to be a birth right.  With a birth right, we
ought to recognize the humanity of the child in the womb 

Another problem with abortion is the abortion breast cancer
link, a woman builds up to nurse and ends up with many
cells that aren't differentiated yet because of an abortion.
Some of those will become cancerous.  We should try to treat
the cancers of women who get it this way, but prevention is
always a better policy than fixing a health problem, at
very high cost, down the road. 

It is inconsistent to be pro environment
and pro death, or pro life and anti environment.  Democrat or Republican
unfortunately.  Choosing between these two inconsistencies though, 
I favor the guy who values human life.  Considering my father 
has a Ph.D. and is an ecologist, that's not a trivial position 
for me.  I do think Bush's pollution credits have the potential
to reduce pollution if the number of credits available to 
business are reduced and the most polluting factories that 
need the most credits are phased out.  Why retrofit a 20 year
old factory when a small guy can build a new one and get better
environmental results?

   --  Michael C. Robinson

More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list