Option #1 -- abort baby of HIV+ mother and everyone applauds; risk of death
to baby 100%
Option #2 -- carry baby to term and deliver it and breastfeed it and you are
accused of child abuse; risk of death to baby 30%

The difference is that in the first option, you don't have a child with
AIDS, and in the second option, you do.  In the first option, the "child"
doesn't exist yet, and doesn't suffer.  In the second option, the child is a
real child, and if it gets HIV and then AIDS, it definitely will suffer.  In
the first option, the cost to the health care system and society is minimal
-- just the minor cost of an abortion, no one needs to know.  In the second
option, the cost to the health care system and society is major -- first for
the court battle, then for foster care, and eventually for major medical and
long-term hospice care of the child if it gets HIV and then AIDS.

I'm not advocating for option #1, make no mistake, merely laying out what I
suspect the arguments would be.  This is the same thing people are saying
all over Africa -- better that we have LOTS of babies dying from being
formula-fed than ANY babies dying from HIV/AIDS contracted through
breastfeeding.  The goal for the "HIV activists" (and dare I say the infant
formula companies) is "No babies getting HIV/AIDS from breastfeeding."  It
is clearly not THE BEST POSSIBLE MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY STATISTICS UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES -- which would clearly come from universal breastfeeding.

Kathy Dettwyler

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html