there is no choice here. Our actions will always lead, directly or indirectly, to the death of some animal and/or vegetal beings.
It’s a necessary evil. But it’s still an evil.
[/quote]
Hunting for sport, a necessary evil?
[quote]kamui wrote:
2) Animals compete with each others and kill each others, so, if we want to respect the lives of ALL beings equally, we have to do it globally, taking the whole ecosystem into account, and trying to preserve or even increase biodiversity.
[/quote]
There are a lot of humans, too many some would say. Abortions could be used to increase biodiversity if humans depopulate and allow for near extinct animals to repopulate. I’m not saying we should do this, just that your statement implies it.
I never intended to do anything but try to show you evidence of the claims I make. That is the only reason I will post a link.
Let’s start again, please tell me what area you are confused about.
[quote]countingbeans wrote: Dude, again: I don’t care about your souce, its age, bias or any of that. All I care about is dirty debate tactics when I’m trying to learn something here.
You should have posted those to refute Raj, not me, I have not taken a postion.
I swear you either ignore points I make on purpose when they force you to evaluate your postion or might prove you to be mistaken about something, or you need to stop the ad hominens you throw at others about “following along” etc. You consistantly ignore the substance of my posts.[/quote]
[quote]kamui wrote:
Regarding the bolded part :
I absolutely agree, but how does this contradict what i said earlier ?
[/quote]
Need to explain why the human right to life is different than the right to life for a chimp, or house fly. So far the only valid argument I see is we are human so we have a bias towards that being more important. There are also the legal factors that are needed to live in a safe society which benefit us all, but for now lets ignore that as it is not relevant.[/quote]
Andy, dude, you seriously crack me up. I swear you must be a troll for our side having fun with this whole thing.
So now we are seriously supposed to entertain the notion that unborn children are the equivalent of monkeys and insects? Or that you honestly need to have the difference explained to you?
You guys let this guy get away with lines like this? What, do you agree with him?
Sometimes I wonder if it would be fun to get a peak at what actually goes on inside your head, dude, or if I’d forever regret having heeded my better judgment in actually looking. [/quote]
Personally do you think there is a difference between a chimp and an insect in regards to killing either one?[/quote]
Other than the visceral anthropomorphism we’d feel about it? Ultimately, no.
Now, my emotions would probably start getting involved if you started messing around with dogs or a whole host of other animals I like. In fact, whereas I am pretty much enervated to ANYTHING involving human death (think ogrish.com) I can’t even watch a fiction movie about an animal if I know the animal is going to die, because I can’t handle it emotionally.
But that is exactly that: emotion. I know that, finally, humans really ARE special, and deserve to be treated with a dignity not afforded to animals. Any animal.
Please find one place where I responded to you but didn’t address the point. I honestly mean that I may have messed up and you thought I was intentionally/unintentionally being obtuse. Please let me know where I was acting in a malicious way with you.
[quote]TigerTime wrote: You’re wasting your time. I’ve been exactly where you are and since then I’ve realized, he isn’t intentionally doing anything; He legitimately lacks the intelligence to comprehend a shift in conversational direction.
He’s much like a leaf-cutter ant caught in a forest fire. He can’t internalize the concept of anything other than cutting leaves, so he continues doing so as he burns to death.
Best case scenario, he’ll respond to you, but his response will have so many layers of fallacy that it will take several other impossible debates before he reaches a point where you can have this one.[/quote]
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if it would be fun to get a peak at what actually goes on inside your head, dude, or if I’d forever regret having heeded my better judgment in actually looking. [/quote]
According to you, probably something like this.
Haha!
You do have a good sense of humor, dude. No matter how hard I try, I just cannot not-like you.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Regarding the bolded part :
I absolutely agree, but how does this contradict what i said earlier ?
[/quote]
Need to explain why the human right to life is different than the right to life for a chimp, or house fly.[/quote]
Actually, I do think that the life of a chimp or the life of a house fly have an intrinsic (and infinite) value.
And i do think that we are morally bound to respect this value.
But strictly speaking, it’s not a “right to life” because “right” is not only a moral concept, it’s a legal and social one.
Chimps and house flies aren’t (and can’t be) members of our social community nor parts of our legal system.
In other words, non human beings doesn’t have any right. But we, as human beings, have some duties toward every and all living beings, non human ones included.
You may think it’s “rhetoric”, but it’s only intellectual rigor and internal consistency.
[/quote]
The legal and social ones are up to our own judgements, so I guess the moral one is the only one that needs explaining. Tell me more about the humans right to life and why it applies to us more than non-humans.[/quote]
I never said that “the humans right to life applies to us more than non-humans”.
I said that we are morally bound to respect all life, human or not.
But in the case of a fetus, we are not only morally bound to respect its life, we are (or at least someone is) also responsible for its existence.
there is no choice here. Our actions will always lead, directly or indirectly, to the death of some animal and/or vegetal beings.
It’s a necessary evil. But it’s still an evil.
[/quote]
Hunting for sport, a necessary evil?[/quote]
Sometimes not an evil at all, if the actual outcome of our action is an increase in biodiversity.
[quote][quote]kamui wrote:
2) Animals compete with each others and kill each others, so, if we want to respect the lives of ALL beings equally, we have to do it globally, taking the whole ecosystem into account, and trying to preserve or even increase biodiversity.
[/quote]
There are a lot of humans, too many some would say. Abortions could be used to increase biodiversity if humans depopulate and allow for near extinct animals to repopulate. I’m not saying we should do this, just that your statement implies it.[/quote]
-there aren’t “too many humans”
-Our duties toward non human life doesn’t come before our responsibilities toward each others.
-Human depopulation (if it were necessary) could be achieved without using abortions.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Redefining words to win an argument will NEVER allow you to win the debate.
par�·a�·site â??[par-uh-sahyt]
noun
an organism that lives on or in [i][u]an organism of another species[/i][/u], known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
Calling a newborn, who is the exact same species as the mother is a blatant attempt appealing to others emotions. If you would like to have a discussion, then please come forward with an open mind.
[/quote]
Parasite and parasitic are two, very different words homie, but you’ll ignore this fact.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Regarding the bolded part :
I absolutely agree, but how does this contradict what i said earlier ?
[/quote]
Need to explain why the human right to life is different than the right to life for a chimp, or house fly.[/quote]
Actually, I do think that the life of a chimp or the life of a house fly have an intrinsic (and infinite) value.
And i do think that we are morally bound to respect this value.
But strictly speaking, it’s not a “right to life” because “right” is not only a moral concept, it’s a legal and social one.
Chimps and house flies aren’t (and can’t be) members of our social community nor parts of our legal system.
In other words, non human beings doesn’t have any right. But we, as human beings, have some duties toward every and all living beings, non human ones included.
You may think it’s “rhetoric”, but it’s only intellectual rigor and internal consistency.
[/quote]
The legal and social ones are up to our own judgements, so I guess the moral one is the only one that needs explaining. Tell me more about the humans right to life and why it applies to us more than non-humans.[/quote]
I never said that “the humans right to life applies to us more than non-humans”.
I said that we are morally bound to respect all life, human or not.
But in the case of a fetus, we are not only morally bound to respect its life, we are (or at least someone is) also responsible for its existence.
Fetus doesn’t come out of nothing you know.
[/quote]
And why are we morally bound to respect its life, in the sense we can’t terminate its existence? At the same time respecting an insects existence and right to life but no threads on why killing them is wrong.
Responsible for existence does not imply respect to life either. Any animals mass produced for food have the least respect for life since their primary existence is to be killed and they exist directly because of us more so than the parents.
“I survived a coat-hanger abortion”
by Dan Zeleny Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:51 EST
June 20, 2012 (Unmaskingchoice.ca) - " survived an abortion," the woman standing in front of me said, looking at my sign.
I am one of the summer interns for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, and for the last two weeks we have been travelling across the country on The New Abortion Caravan. Dozens of people have given us amazing testimonies, dozens have turned pro-life, but I had never heard this story before.
I was doing “Choice” Chain, a project where we stand with signs of aborted pre-born babies as well as pre-born babies in utero outside the Portage Mall in Winnipeg. When a woman in her mid-forties walked by, I asked her what she thought about abortion. She stopped, looked at my sign, looked up at me and said, “You don’t want to hear what I have to say.”
I began to prepare myself for a lengthy and heated discussion about abortion. Instead, she began to tell me one of the most powerful stories I have ever heard.
The woman, Cynthia, told me that in 1966, her mother had become pregnant with her in what was a decidedly unwanted pregnancy. Although abortion was still illegal, Cynthia was not safe. Her mother decided to attempt an illegal abortion, consuming enormous amounts of drugs to end her pre-born life. When that failed, her mother tried to abort by inserting a coat hanger inside herself. The coat hanger missed Cynthia’s heart by a centimetre. Her mother passed out, and Cynthia’s father found her unconscious on the floor. He rushed her to the hospital, but the situation was so serious that they were air-lifted to Toronto. They spent seven months in the hospital.
While I listened in shock, Cynthia told me that in spite of her mother’s attempts to kill her, she had survived until birth, needing fifteen surgeries in the first two years to keep her alive. Her mother dropped her off at her aunt’s house, wanting nothing to do with her. Several years later, her mother was dating a new man and regained custody of Cynthia. However, her mother then tried to finish the job she had started while Cynthia was in utero, attempting to kill her three more times. Instead of a coat hanger, a knife was her weapon of choice this time. When she was fifteen, her mother put a knife through her bedroom door, and she and her brother escaped for good.
When she was eighteen, Cynthia returned to fight and win custody of her younger siblings. They left and never looked back. Cynthia told me that she now works in addictions and as a counsellor, helping people to learn life skills. She told me that life is always valuable, and that abortion kills - indeed, that it had almost killed her. Still, she harbours no anger towards her mother in spite of the fact that she has suffered all her life with the effects of the attempted abortion, needing a surgery almost once every two or three years.
Cynthia’s story illustrates exactly what we have been have been saying across the country with the New Abortion Caravan: Abortion is Canada’s greatest human rights violation because it targets the body of a pre-born child - children like Cynthia. The women of the first Caravan used stories like that of Cynthia’s mother to demand free abortion on demand - forgetting that it is a horrible and grotesque injustice to kill pre-born children regardless of the method. Just because a suction machine is more efficient than a coat hanger, does not make it any more ethical or any less grotesque. It does not matter to pre-born children whether you destroy their lives with a coat hanger, with drugs, with a saline solution, or with a suction machine.
I believe with all my heart that Cynthia is a valuable human being with intrinsic dignity and beauty. It was wrong for her mother to target her with a coat hanger. It was wrong for her mother to attempt to kill her some time later with a knife. And it is abhorrent that we have responded to stories such as those of Cynthia’s mother by legalizing a more efficient way of killing. As Cynthia told me, “I wish that if my mother didn’t want me, she should have just given me up for adoption.”
Join with those of us on the New Abortion Caravan in giving Canadians a message that has been unheard for far too long: EndtheKilling. Put away the instruments of death, and let the pre-born children live.
For as Cynthia said, “Every life, every breath, every moment is precious.”
Again, my fault for believing you were confused because of your frustration. Please let me know where you are frustrated or where I am having a problem in an explanation. I will try my best to explain my position clearly and why. I will cite the page so you can read the information yourself. I never pull anything out of nowhere, to make my argument.
[quote]countingbeans wrote: Holy fuck…
What, please god tell me, what in the post you quoted of mine makes you think I’m confused?
I’m not confused at all. Frustrated, but not confused.[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Redefining words to win an argument will NEVER allow you to win the debate.
par�?�·a�?�·site �¢??[par-uh-sahyt]
noun
an organism that lives on or in [i][u]an organism of another species[/i][/u], known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
Calling a newborn, who is the exact same species as the mother is a blatant attempt appealing to others emotions. If you would like to have a discussion, then please come forward with an open mind.
[/quote]
Parasite and parasitic are two, very different words homie, but you’ll ignore this fact.[/quote]
I’ll wager her use of the adjective is not so very far removed from the implication that an unborn human child is indeed the noun that it suggests.
I mean, did you, would you have ever, in any realistic situation you can possibly imagine, have chosen that adjective for your own kids while your wife was still pregnant with them?
I’ll tell you what, somebody better damned well not use it within earshot of my wife or me right now. Both she and I know exactly what the sentence above is attempting to imply. And it ain’t just an innocent, neutral description of a biological process.
I mean, did you, would you have ever, in any realistic situation you can possibly imagine, have chosen that adjective for your own kids while your wife was still pregnant with them? [/quote]
No, not at all.
I actually agree with the point KD (and yourself) are making for the most part, he was just doing a shitty job of making it.
What About Illegal Abortions?
If abortion is outlawed, will thousands of women die in the “back alley”?
Page Summary:
Some justify abortion on the claim that if it is outlawed, women will abort anyway and may die in the process. There are 3 problems with this hypothesis. First, it doesn’t address the ethics of abortion. Second, laws against abortion would deter most women from having one. Third, there is no evidence that illegal abortions are more dangerous than legal abortions.
The wire coat hanger has long been a prop of “choice” for those staging abortion-rights rallies or protests. You see them on signs and buttons or hanging around necks to symbolize the idea that women will die en masse if they ever lose the legal right to kill their unborn offspring. The first problem with this line of defense is the fact that it has nothing to do with the ethics of abortion. It makes no attempt to justify the act of abortion, it simply argues that if women can’t abort legally, they’ll abort illegally and die in the process. Those who make such an argument conveniently ignore the fact that abortion itself kills a living human being, not by accident but by design. It is nonsensical to argue that society must keep it safe and legal for one human being to kill another human beingâ??especially when the one being killed is both innocent and defenseless.
The second problem with the coat hanger argument is that it assumes that the legality of abortion does not influence a woman’s willingness to have an abortion. This is simply not true. External restrictions have a huge impact on abortion frequency. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) tells us that "from 1970 through 1982, the reported number of legal abortions in the United States increased every year."1 If the legality of abortion didn’t influence a woman’s willingness to choose abortion, we wouldn’t have seen such a massive increase in abortion frequency during the years following its legalization. More recently, the National Abortion Federation (NAF), which maintains that "women resort to induced abortion irrespective of legal restrictions,"2 provides more examples of how influenceable a woman’s decision to abort actually is. Consider:
The abortion rate of non-metropolitan women is about half that of women who live in metropolitan counties.3
Studies have found that public funding of abortion makes services accessible to women who would otherwise carry unintended pregnancies to term.4
The abortion rate of women with Medicaid coverage is three times as high as that of other women.5
Mississippi's "two-trip" requirement, which was the first of its kind to be enforced, reduced the abortion rate for Mississippi residents by over 15% in the first 12 months.6
What does this data tell us? It indicates that women who live in close proximity to abortion facilities are twice as likely to have an abortion as women who don’t; women who have their abortions publicly paid for are up to three times as likely to abort; and requiring women to make a second trip to the abortion clinic makes them 15% less likely to abort. In other words, a woman’s decision to have an abortion is influenced by all sorts of variables. The more convenient it is for a woman to have an abortion, the more likely she is to have one. And vice versa. The significant inconvenience of having to break the law to procure an abortion would be deterrent enough for most women facing an unplanned pregnancy.
How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L., we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always "5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year." I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the "morality" of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.7
Dr. Christopher Tietze, then acting as the chief statistician for Planned Parenthood and the Centers for Disease Control, also addressed the exaggerated claim of 5,000 - 10,000 abortion related deaths per year. He wrote in a 1969 edition of Scientific America:
Some 30 years ago it was judged that such deaths (from illegal abortion) might number 5,000 to 10,000 per year, but this rate even if it was approximately correct at the time, cannot be anywhere near the true rate now. The total number of deaths from all causes among women of reproductive age in the U.S. is not more than about 50,000 per year. The National Center for Health Statistics listed 235 deaths from abortion in 1965. Total mortality from illegal abortions was undoubtedly larger than that figure, but in all likelihood it was under 1,000.8
In the year prior to Roe v. Wade (1972), the Centers for Disease Control reports that 39 women died from illegal abortion in the United States and 24 died from legal abortion.9 That is a far cry from 5,000-10,000. The National Abortion Federation maintains that "between 1970 and 1980, legal abortion in the USA is estimated to have prevented 1,500 pregnancy-related deaths."10 But even if those numbers are accurate, legal abortion killed roughly 15 million human beings during that same stretch of time. If you do the math, the number of women “saved” by legal abortion from 1970 to 1980 was 0.0001% of the total number of innocent human beings killed by legal abortion. And at least half of those killed were women.
Finally, the coat hanger argument ignores that the increased “safety” of abortion in modern times owes not to its legality, but to improved medical technology. Mary Calderon, former director of Planned Parenthood, estimated in a July 1960 article from the American Journal of Public Health that 90% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing. She writes the following:
Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physicians. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind. In New York City in 1921 there were 144 abortion deaths, In 1951 there were only 15; and , while the abortion death rate was going down so strikingly in that 30-year period, we know what happened to the population and the birth rate. Two corollary factors must be mentioned here: first, chemotherapy and antibiotics have come in, benefiting all surgical procedures as well as abortion. Second, and even more important, the conference estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; and many of them are in good standing in their communities. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is...abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous.11
The National Abortion Federation affirms Calderon’s conclusions in their 2009 teaching text on abortion. They write:
Around the period of legalization in the USA, technological advances in the field of abortion care facilitated new models of abortion delivery. Specifically, development of the vacuum aspirator, cervical anesthesia methods, and the Karman cannula all improved the safety of abortion and permitted its provision in nonhospital settings.12
First-trimester aspiration abortion is one of the safest procedures provided for women of reproductive age. Its use in lieu of dilation and sharp curettage has reduced abortion-related morbidity worldwide.13
The US adoption of laminaria tents in the 1970s to dilate the cervix before uterine evacuation represented a landmark in abortion care, permitting safe D&E later in pregnancy.14
In some situations of formal illegality, women can still obtain safe abortions.15
Even in developing countries with restrictive abortion laws, increasing use of MVA and medical abortion methods has reduced abortion-related mortality.16
Induced abortion is an impressively safe procedure, particularly but not exclusively where it is legal.107
Practitioners with MVA skills can treat most medical abortion complications privately in their own clinics, which is highly desirable in restrictive and remote practice settings.18
Medical abortion can expand access to safe abortion care, especially in restrictive or low-resource settings that lack other safe optionsâ?¦ Using medications to induce abortion can lower costs and transfer control from the clinician to the woman. Empowering women may be particularly important where large social gaps exist between patients and clinicians, as is often the case in low-resource settings and where abortion is legally restricted and socially stigmatized.19
That misoprostol can be administered either in the clinic or in a different location of the woman's choosing enhances her ability to ensure privacy.20
Medical abortionâ?¦ can be administered and managed by nurses, midwives, and other trained personnel. Trained midlevel providers can safely and effectively perform vacuum aspiration, the standard treatment for failed medical abortions, thus enabling delivery of medical abortion in decentralized areas that have few or no doctors.21
Vacuum aspiration to evacuate a failed pregnancy in the first trimester is performed in a fashion similar to first-trimester pregnancy termination.22
D&E for the indication of fetal demise is performed in the same way as D&E for second-trimester pregnancy termination.23
The above statements from the NAF make an abundance of things clear. First, the relative safety of abortion for the mother depends more on equipment and technique than it does on legality. Second, the future of illegal abortion is not surgical but medical. Women won’t be bleeding in the back alley from a punctured uterus. Third, since surgical abortions are performed with the same equipment that is often used to treat spontaneous fetal demise, physicians willing to perform illegal abortions will already have the necessary tools on hand. There is no reason to believe that illegal abortion will be significantly more dangerous for the mother than illegal abortion. In the end, the back-alley, coat hanger abortion is nothing more than a convenient myth aimed at sparking emotions and arousing public sympathy. If abortion is outlawed in the future, some abortions will still take place, but relatively few will be fatal to the mother. If abortion remains legal, however, millions of innocent human beings will continue to dieâ??a trade-off that is both tragic and unjust.
Footnotes
Joy Herndon, M.S., et al, â??Abortion Surveillanceâ??-United States, 1998,â?? Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, June 7, 2002).
Iqbal H. Shah, PhD, and Elisabeth Ahman, MA, â??Unsafe Abortion: The Global Public Health Challenge,â?? Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy. Ed. Paul, Lichtenberg, Borgatta, Grimes, Stubblefield and Creinin. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 10.
Stanley K. Henshaw, PhD, â??Unintended Pregnancy and Abortion in the USA: Epidemiology and Public Health Impact,â?? Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy. Ed. Paul, Lichtenberg, Borgatta, Grimes, Stubblefield and Creinin. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 32.
Ibid.
Ibid, 30.
Bonnie Scott Jones, JD, and Jennifer Dalven, JD, â??Abortion Law and Policy in the USA,â?? Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy. Ed. Paul, Lichtenberg, Borgatta, Grimes, Stubblefield and Creinin. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 43.
Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Aborting America (New York: Pinnacle Books, 1979), 193.
Cristopher Tietze and Sarah Lewit, â??Abortion,â?? Scientific America, January 1969, Volume 220, 23.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Sept. 4, 1992, Volume 41), Table 15.
Stanley K. Henshaw, PhD, â??Unintended Pregnancy and Abortion in the USA: Epidemiology and Public Health Impact,â?? Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy. Ed. Paul, Lichtenberg, Borgatta, Grimes, Stubblefield and Creinin. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 32.
Mary Calderone, â??Illegal Abortions,â?? American Journal of Public Health, July 1960, 949.
Carole Joffe, PhD, â??Abortion and Medicine: A Sociopolitical History,â?? Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy. Ed. Paul, Lichtenberg, Borgatta, Grimes, Stubblefield and Creinin. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 3.
Karen Meckstroth MD, MPH, and Maureen Paul MD, MPH, â??First-Trimester Aspiration Abortion,â?? Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy. Ed. Paul, Lichtenberg, Borgatta, Grimes, Stubblefield and Creinin. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 152.
Cassing Hammond MD, and Stephen Chasen MD, â??Dilation and Evacuation,â?? Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy. Ed. Paul, Lichtenberg, Borgatta, Grimes, Stubblefield and Creinin. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 158.
Carole Joffe, PhD, â??Abortion and Medicine: A Sociopolitical History,â?? Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy. Ed. Paul, Lichtenberg, Borgatta, Grimes, Stubblefield and Creinin. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 6.
Karen Meckstroth MD, MPH, and Maureen Paul MD, MPH, â??First-Trimester Aspiration Abortion,â?? Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy. Ed. Paul, Lichtenberg, Borgatta, Grimes, Stubblefield and Creinin.(Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 135.
E. Steve Lichtenberg MD, MPH, and David A. Grimes MD, â??Surgical Complications: Prevention and Management,â?? Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy. Ed. Paul, Lichtenberg, Borgatta, Grimes, Stubblefield and Creinin. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 224.
Laura Castleman MD, MPH, MBA, et al, â??Providing Abortion in Low-Resource Settings,â?? Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy. Ed. Paul, Lichtenberg, Borgatta, Grimes, Stubblefield and Creinin. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 322.
Ibid, 320.
Ibid, 322.
Ibid.
Alan B. Goldberg MD, MPH, et al, â??Pregnancy Loss,â?? Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy. Ed. Paul, Lichtenberg, Borgatta, Grimes, Stubblefield and Creinin. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 268.
Ibid, 272.