Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram
Who's misusing which term? At the moment I'm, at least, not sure that Santorum's 2-hour-old baby is the same pregnancy that was EITHER naturally miscarried OR was given an induced miscarriage.
So right now we have three explanations for what happened:
1.) as per the article I linked, the pregnancy was terminated by an induced miscarriage
2.) as per Klein's article, the Santorums decided not to terminate pregnancy, and later, Karen miscarried
3.) the baby was EITHER induced or naturally-born, lived for two hours, and then died - and was thus not a miscarriage at all.
|
It is my understanding that for a birth to be considered medically induced, the mother has to be induced with drugs which specifically encourage the onset of labour.
A baby can be induced and still be classed as a natural birth. It is my understanding that the term natural birth simply means born through the birth canal.
You'll need to check up on what's considered a live birth. I don't believe HM's chart is definitive. My understanding is that a live birth means the fetus or baby has a heart beat when it's born.
eta: I think Santorum is misusing the term which is why there is such debate about it.
eta also: No one but the doctors and the Santorum family are ever going to know exactly what happened.
My feeling is they made a choice which goes against what their voters expect of them, and they're trying to cover their arses by using weird terms to confuse the voters and make it seem ok. I doubt anyone will ever know the real truth, and in my opinion, it's no one else's business anyway, even if they are hypocrites.