Home Pharos Fiction Site Map Updates Search


                                                                                                                        Back Next

Halexandria Foundation
Sacred Mathematics
Connective Physics
Chronicles of Earth
Justice, Order, and Law
Extraterrestrial Life
Creating Reality
Tree of Life

Don't Push the Baby

New Page -- 6 August 2003

Added Notes -- March 25, 2004


One of the classic dictates in metaphysics is: “Don’t Push the River.” 


This is the advice inevitably given to those spiritual seekers who approach spirituality and metaphysics with the same enthusiasm and assertiveness normally employed against fighting a fire or earning a buck by any means possible.  Contrary to such aggressive tendencies, the very essence of spirituality is in timing, i.e., letting it happen naturally and assuming one can not dictate when or how.  Spirituality is about going with the flow and not attempting to divert the river nor trying to paddle upstream to what the mind perceives to be the ultimate goal.


The same can be said of “Don’t Push the Baby.”  Only in the latter case, the stakes are enormously higher.


There are two categories of reasoning for this essential ingredient of parenting, that of allowing the birth of a baby to be on the baby’s schedule – and no one else’s.


The first is purely medical.  In essence, inducing labor causes greater pain to both the mother and baby, and has negative effects for the life of the child.  The second reason is metaphysical, and is quite possibly even more undesirable.  The horror of it all is that inducing labor is used more than 9 times out of 10 for no better reason than the convenience of the medical doctor.




The information contained within the pages of this website is for educational purposes only.  Nothing set forth herein is intended to be medical advice or able to be construed as such.  This discussion is private in its entirety and non-negotiable between the parties.  Anyone acting on any of the contents herein does so solely on the basis of her or his own volition and at his or her own risk.  Everyone has the duty and absolute right to think, evaluate, research, learn, and act autonomously.  It would appear prudent for anyone to refrain from adopting any course of action without first understanding the basis and reasons thereof, including seeking the advice of trained, licensed professionals.



Medical Inducement of Labor


Inducing labor is simply initiating or augmenting labor by artificial means.  Such means include [1]:


bullet Artificially rupturing the membranes (bag of waters) that surround the fetus – a procedure which allegedly (possibly from the doctor’s point of view) causes no more discomfort than a vaginal exam.
bullet Stripping the membranes during a pelvic examination – a procedure which supposedly stimulates the release of prostaglandin hormones which can help ripe the cervix.  (This can be done at an office visit and may reduce the chances of post term labor.)
bullet Inserting a gel or suppository containing the prostaglandin hormone into the vagina to ripen the cervix.
bullet Administering an enema or drinking castor oil to stimulate the bowels and produce prostaglandins, hopefully to help induce labor.
bullet Nipple stimulation to release natural oxytocin.  Massaging the nipples can cause uterine contractions, but can also hyperstimulate the uterus – thus a jump-start technique which must be done with extreme care.
bullet Pitocin – a synthetic form of oxytocin – can be administered intravenously through a pump to start contractions and used for the duration of labor.


Any of the above techniques is supposedly done when the normal process of birth results in a condition where the risks of prolonging the pregnancy are higher than the risks of delivering the baby right away.  Reasons may include (but not limited to): [1]


bullet The baby isn’t thriving or growing in the uterus.
bullet Tests indicate the placenta is no longer functioning optimally and the uterine environment is no longer healthy.
bullet The mother has a chronic or acute illness, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, or kidney disease that threatens the well-being or health of the baby.
bullet The mother’s bag of waters break and spontaneous labor does not start within a reasonable amount of time.
bullet The pregnancy is two weeks past due an accurate due date.


These reasons are all medically and metaphysically valid.  However…


According to Nancy Griffin and Mothering magazine [2], the medical inducement of labor is medically required in only about 3 percent of pregnancies, but 81 percent of women in US hospitals receive Pitocin either to induce or augment their labors.  “The majority [of induced labors] aren’t medically necessary,” and “that therefore approximately 75 percent of all inductions put both the mother and baby at risk."


According to Roberto Caldreyo-Barcia, MD, former president of the International Federation of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and an eminent researcher into the effects of obstetrical interventions, Pitocin is the most abused drug in the world today."

“The World Health Organization deplores routinely using Pitocin.  The Physician’s Desk Reference says that Pitocin should be used only when medically necessary.” 

“Pitocin can cause increased pain, fetal distress, neonatal jaundice, and retained placenta; and recent research suggests that exposure to Pitocin may be a factor in causing autism.” 

Eric Hollander of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, for example, links autistic children with Pitocin-induced labors. 

“In 1978, the FDA advisory committee removed its approval of Pitocin for the elective induction of labor. (The drug has never been approved by the FDA for the use of augmenting labor.)  The current Physician’s Desk Reference clearly states that ‘Pitocin is not indicated for elective induction of labor’.” [2]


“Augmenting labor, often confused with induction, is a slightly different process, used to help or speed up a labor that began on its own.” “A basic fear of the natural process of childbirth has led, over many centuries, to a cultural warping of childbirth.  Justifiable fear about the possible death of a baby or mother in childbirth, combined with beliefs in magic, rituals, drugs, herbal remedies, and much later, technology [technology being viewed on the same level as blood letting], has led to the use of a whole host of ‘cures’ for labors that didn’t seem to start ‘on time’.” [2] 

Ah yes, the timing!


It is the timing of labor and birth that this web page is all about, and the horror of arbitrarily and thoughtlessly inducing labor.


In recent decades, many medical doctors have begun suggesting, encouraging, or advising mothers to have their babies induced on the basis that the baby was past the due dateThis is fundamentally ludicrous, and amounts to criminal-negligence on the part of the doctor.  The reality is that "the percentage of babies born exactly on their predicted due date is so small it's a wonder we bother with due dates at all. It's perfectly normal for 80 percent of healthy babies to have anywhere from a 38- to 42-week gestation."  [2]



1)  “First-time mothers can almost be counted on to deliver ten days or more after their due date.”


2) “Taking the Pill up to two months before conception can cause havoc with due dates, and


3) "Because biologic variation in fetal size increases throughout gestation, ultrasound dating can be deemed somewhat reliable only in the first trimester.”

In the latter case, the best case due date accuracy is plus or minus 14 days.  [2]


Fundamentally important is the fact that “it’s the baby’s brain that initiates birth”, [2] not the doctor’s, the mother’s, or anyone else’s!  Research indicates that the fetal brain is doing its own monitoring, tracking its own development.  When the baby’s ready, it’s happening!  Otherwise the natural interaction between mother and child is bypassed – to the detriment of all concerned.


An additional complication is that inducing labor often results in a Cesarean Section. If the baby -- and the mother -- are simply not ready for the birthing, then it becomes all too necessary, all too often, to cut the mother open and retrieve the baby via the ultimate in invasive surgery. And it's simply not necessary. In the report, Death by Medicine, the five authors note that:

"In 2001, Cesarean section is still the most common OB/GYN surgical procedure. Approximately 4 million births occur annually, with a 24% C-Section rate, i.e., 960,000 operations. In the Netherlands only 8% of babies are delivered by Cesarean section. Assuming human babies are similar in the U.S. and in the Netherlands, we are performing 640,000 unnecessary C-Sections in the U.S. with its three to four times higher mortality and 20 times greater morbidity than vaginal delivery."

The complete report -- Death by Medicine -- is extremely important in that it includes a wide variety of Iatrogenic problems; health problems (e.g. death) caused by the medical establishment. There is in particular one section on Women's issues. This is essential reading!


Great Expectations Mothers have a tendency to want what is best for their babies.  And yet for many the inconvenience of the last weeks of pregnancy, the hounding (or subtle conniving) of their doctors in an attempt to control the birth and confine it to their schedule, and the fact that the mother is often just sick of being pregnant, may easily overcome the natural bonding between mother and child. It is known, for example, that “Pitocin can shorten the normal oxygenating intervals that occur between contractions is a threat to the integrity of the fetal brain and can have lifelong consequences for the affected baby.” [2]


If we consider the fact that 81 percent of US Women and their babies are assaulted by Pitocin, we must also consider the degree to which induced labor is warping the cultural and intelligence level of the country.  Numerous reports [3, 4, 5], for example, have noted that adult intelligence is linked to birth weight.  In general higher birth weights meant higher IQs – about 10 points.  By extension, we might assume that induced babies – with their corresponding lower birth weights – would have a reduced IQ of about 10 points! In other words, inducing your baby may be lowering your baby’s IQ by 10 points! Size Matters – not just in the birth weights, but in the timing as well.  If we cut out the last two weeks of a regular pregnancy, when the child’s brain is undergoing its most significant development, we are seriously shortchanging the baby. 


Keep in mind that it is the fetal brain that triggers the normal birth time!  Interfere with that and it will be about as welcome to the baby as coitus interruptus would be to the mother and father. Inducement of labor, leading to lower birth weight, leading to lower IQ, and so forth and so on… is horrendous for any child, but if we consider the effect on a larger basis, the problem is even more astounding. 


According to Time Magazine [6] there were 4 million children born in the U.S. in 2002 – amounting to 13.9 births per 1,000 people, the lowest birthrate in nearly a century.  At the same time, the percentage of low-birth-weight babies was 7.8%, the highest level in more than 30 years.  Such low-birth-weight babies are not just those induced, but those who are considered to be notably below the normal range of birth weights.


There is a social disaster brewing here!  The rush to induce is lowering the IQ of the populace by as much as 10 points – rather the ultimate in the Dumbing Down of America!  And we’re not even including such monsters as utero exposure to Monsanto’s PCB leading to low IQs, poor reading comprehension, difficulty paying attention, and memory problems. [7]  This is a social plague.


Parenting and Pregnancy [8] notes that, "The best practical advice for how to have a smarter baby is not to hinder nature's miracle-in-progress." "Brain cells depend on chemical signals to tell them where to go, how to connect, and which genes to turn on and off.  Any foreign substance that interferes with the clear transmission of these chemical messages can impact negatively on development."  "Any kind of drug use -- running the gamut from caffeine to heroin [and clearly including any drug inducing drug such as Pitocin] -- has the potential to limit the later intellectual development of the unborn child."  "Pregnant women should avoid all drugs."


It is noteworthy that hat size increases with IQ.  Imagine that!


Metaphysical Implications


Every baby has its agenda on the timing and circumstances of its arrival on the planet.  Furthermore, each baby’s premiere is part and parcel of that soul’s plan for its upcoming incarnation.  In the planning for a life, a soul will select parents, circumstances, timing, and a tentative script of the events and situations of the coming lifetime.  Very importantly, the psychology, mental fitness, emotional tendencies, and spiritual inclinations are all part of this planning, and are intimately connected with the moments of their birth through astrology.


In its activities on the other side prior to incarnating, any given soul will select its astrological natal chart -- its exact day and moment of birth -- so as to provide the newborn with the psychological and personality profile it will use in its coming life.  The precise day and exact timing is all part of this plan, so that the soul will have the tools to accomplish as precisely as possible its goals and aspirations for its latest incarnation.


For example, the exact moment of birth (plus or minus two minutes) will dictate the façade of an individual or how they come across to others – obviously an important feature of the personality and its ability to interact with people. These pre-natal decisions are the essence of the Free Will of the soul, and the characteristic choices a particular baby will initially adopt.


There is, however, a joker in the deck.  It’s called the Free Will of the baby’s parents (as well as possibly other key players, including grandparents, siblings, doctors, and any individuals who may knowingly or unknowingly become part of the process).  Because of this, a soul in its planning for an upcoming life will often plan for contingencies -- alternatives A, B, and perhaps C -- in order to account for possible decisions by others. 


It seems probable, however, that the basic plan – where everything takes the natural, Don’t Push the River approach – will be the most desired and preferred version.  Any of the alternative plans are second and third choices and may result in a soul being ill equipped to accomplish its desired life destiny.  Worse yet, the chosen path may leave a residue in the soul forced onto an alternate path, such that what the soul’s heart yearns for is effectively impossible from its fall-back psychological and personality profile.


It is said that the best laid plans of mice, men, and incarnating souls oft times go astray.  Typically it is the parents and their medical advisors which really gum up the works.  The decision of a mother to engage in drugs, alcohol, and activities which are not conducive to a healthy baby, and which may in addition result in an early or late birth date – and thus foiling the incoming soul’s plan for a particular psychology and life path – is one obvious case in point.  Such drugs include prescription and hospital invasively-administered drugs.


The more ubiquitous nature is the strong tendency for many medical doctors to encourage and/or too easily acquiesce to the idea of inducing labor with the use of drugs such as Pitocin.  Besides the basic, undisputed fact that the medical use of drugs to artificially induce the onset of labor often results in a more painful delivery by the mother (and also for the baby who may not be able to make their immediate discomfort known), the decision to induce labor is certain to infringe upon the baby’s Free Will in selecting its chosen time for a natural birth.




According to the cover story of Time Magazine's June 9, 2003 issue, “The Doctor Won’t See You Now,” the soaring cost of malpractice insurance is deemed responsible for many doctors quitting the profession, moving into friendlier states (with caps on the amounts of liability), and switching specializations (from high risks arenas such as neurosurgery to lower risk specialties such as dermatology).  Of particular note is the statistic reported by Time that positions in residency programs in ob-gyn were down 30%, E.R. medicine down 20%, and other areas less still.  The fact ob-gyn is considered one of the most litigious and more than Emergency Room medicine (where things are often chaotic) is noteworthy.


This is especially curious when one considers that of all specialties in medicine, the delivery of babies is the only one where disease, malfunctions of the body, or accidents are not the primary cause necessitating the use of medical doctors.  One can understand why heart surgeons doing high risk surgery might encounter liability difficulties, but in the case for the natural course of life – giving birth – it is strange almost beyond belief that ob-gyn is a legally dangerous area in which to practice.  Admittedly hysterectomies – especially due to elective or convenience surgeries – may make the ob-gyn specialty more liable.  But delivering babies would not appear, a priori, to be a prime candidate for the liability sweepstakes.


What could be the reason?  One obvious possibility is the eagerness with which medical doctors put their patients (mothers and babies) unnecessarily through hell by inducing labor before the baby-chosen arrival time.  Not only does the inducement by drugs result in greater pain for both mother and child, but it also greatly increases the chance for a Caesarian (Cesarean) section – an operation for delivering a child by cutting through the wall of the abdomen.  Some knowledgeable sources have suggested inducing labor via drugs can result in a C-section 70 to 80% of the time!  Furthermore, it is in C-Sections that the potential for damage and injury to the mother and baby (and thus for litigation against the doctor) is just more bad news following bad news.


Part of the doctor’s liability stems from the decision to induce labor in connection with the so-called “due date” for the baby.  This Expected Time of Arrival (ETA) for a baby is fundamentally a guess – with a due date inevitably having an accuracy of plus or minus two weeks (or in some cases – such as first time mothers -- even longer)!  No one disputes this unavoidable inaccuracy, but for wholly inexplicable and indefensible reasons the M.D. ob-gyn specialist makes the assumption that the due date is somehow cast in stone.  The reality is that if one has a “due date” of June 15th, the actual meaning of this is that the baby is expected to arrive during the month of June.  Anytime during the month of June!  Furthermore, if it’s a first baby, one can often expect a few days to a week of additional waiting.


One way to look at it is from a statistical point of view, i.e., a “bell shaped curve” where the most likely date is the 15th, but where the 13th, 14th, 16th, or 17th are very nearly as likely.  Meanwhile as one progresses toward the end of the probability spectrum (the early and late portions of June) birth dates become increasingly less likely.  For a first baby, the curve is likely skewed to the latter days such that the 18th might be slightly more probable than the 15th.  But less likely does not mean "late" or "early".


And yet, medical doctors in their quest to “play god” invariably pick the 15th as the “drop dead” date, and thereafter declare with complete arrogance that on the 16th: the “baby is past its due date”.  If the “due date” is defined as the medium point on the bell curve, then this is technically correct.  But acting on this fact as if “something must be done” is in direct violation of any and all rational medical science, and assures that roughly half of all babies will be declared late, and therefore, will become candidates for the inducement of labor!


Why in the world would otherwise allegedly caring doctors push such anti-medical crap?


There are several reasons.

One:  There is an oversupply of crap in the medical profession.


Two:  A second reason is based on the basic reasoning of “follow the money”.  Doctors and hospitals have the potential for increasing their income by prescribing procedures and treatments which increase their bottom line.  One baby might not make the down payment on that new cabin cruiser, but a couple of hundred might buy it outright.  In effect, many medical doctors routinely recommend violating the Free Will of an incoming soul for a few extra bucks.


Three:  There are undoubtedly good reasons for a small percentage of cases (about 3%) where a baby is induced.  Medical reasons which involve the health and safety of mother and/or baby are not at issue.  What is outrageous is the use of drugs to induce labor because of the apparently overriding issue of convenience!

Babies and mothers are now being routinely exposed to the greater pain of drug induced birth, the significant risk of Caesarian Section, the invasive process of drugs in the system, the inevitable risk of a lifetime operating at a lowered intelligence, and the willful ignorance of the baby’s future plans, merely because of convenience.  Mothers are now set up whereby they are less likely to find the birthing process the spiritually and emotionally astounding adventure that it is.  There is even the potential for decreasing the mother-child bond by taking away – arbitrarily and capriciously – the wonders of natural childbirth.


Inducing Labor by drugs for the sake of convenience is a grotesque and highly irresponsible choice for medical doctors (who have a serious conflict of interest) and for new parents, who must ultimately accept responsibility for their own lives and their baby’s; and who therefore must no longer acquiesce to the authority of the M.D.


It is small wonder that litigation is on the rise (typically from parents who trusted their doctors – much to their chagrin and responsibility).  But instead of money being the fuel of litigation, perhaps such doctors should simply be run out of the profession.  (The insurance companies asked me to add this last sentence.)


Legal Complications


If the above doesn't constitute outrage, then consider the following: Women are not being forced against their will to have C-Sections, such that refusal can result in the woman being charged with murder! [This is distinct from infant circumcision, where the male is given no choice whatsoever -- and the medical doctors have clearly violated the premise, "First of all, do no harm."] Lynn M. Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women [9] has written about one case in which a 28-year old, Utah woman was actually arrested for murder for refusing to undergo a C-section. The woman who was pregnant with twins rejected the advice of her physicians to have a caesarean section, allegedly resulting in the stillbirth of one of the twins. Ms. Paltrow goes on to note that:

"According to the law, however, pregnant women -- like other Americans -- have the right to decide whether or not to undergo surgery. The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) as well as other leading medical groups similarly conclude that the final decision must be the woman's: 'Once a patient has been informed of the material risks and benefits involved with a treatment, test or procedure, that patient has the right to exercise full autonomy in deciding whether to undergo the treatment, test, or procedure or whether to make a choice among a variety of treatments, tests, or procedures. In the exercise of that autonomy, the informed patient also has the right to refuse to undergo any of these treatments, tests, or procedures... Performing an operative procedure on a patient without the patient's permission can constitute 'battery' under common law. In most circumstances this is a criminal act. . . . Such a refusal [of consent] may be based on religious beliefs, personal preference, or comfort.' ACOG. Informed refusal. Committee Opinion No 237, June 2000."

"These legal and medical ethical principles make sense for both women and children. Doctors are not infallible and their advice is just that, advice. In addition to the consensus of medical organizations, courts, too, have long recognized a patient's right to make health care decisions free from governmental intrusion. However, in the case of a pregnant woman refusing potentially beneficial medical treatment for the fetus, the principle has been too easily set aside, and for dubious reasons." [9]


Ms. Paltrow goes on to note other cases of this wholly unwarranted invasion of individual rights by ego-manical doctors and a out-of-control governments. In many cases, women have been forced to flee from the hospital in order to avoid the hospital gaining legal custody of a fetus before, during, and after delivery! Most of these women had perfectly healthy babies -- and without surgery. One Georgia case involved doctors claming a 99% chance of the baby dying and a 50% chance of the woman dying. The women fled and delivered a healthy baby vaginally. As Ms. Paltrow notes: "Neither women nor children are protected by a system that makes women flee from hospitals or subjects them to unnecessary surgery."


There is some hope, however, as women and their families become more aware of the complications (medical, legal, etceteras) of interfering with the natural birthing process for unwarranted and unjustifiable reasons. Carol Stronstorff [or Justice Denied] of The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Patients is just one of many organizations which are attempting to hold the Medical Establishment accountable for both their arrogance and their incompetance. It's time to avoid becoming an Iatrogenic statistic.


Case Studies


The sheer arrogance of the situation is further demonstrated by four examples (all of which are historically accurate).


One baby was induced – leading to a C-Section – by the doctor assuring the parents that the baby was late.  After the birth, the nurse who made the initial check of the baby (the first child for the mother) declared the baby to be 38 weeks along (as opposed to the 40 week norm).  [The nurse had understood that there was a medical problem, and thus was not sufficiently guarded in her initial assessment – not sufficient at any rate for the hospital’s lawyers.]  The baby had been born on December 23rd, and thus the doctor’s decision was likely predicated on the basis the doctor did not want to spend Christmas day in the maternity ward.  This may be understandable, but it must be stressed that there was no legitimate medical reason to induce the labor for such an early birth.


In a second case, the doctor urged -- and the parents agreed -- that it would be better to have the baby on a Thursday so that anyone wanting to visit the proud new parents and first child could more easily do so on the coming weekend! The monstrous lack of care for the baby in this case is incredible!  It should be noted that the arbitrary decision followed an almost perfect pregnancy and where there was no medical reason to rush things, i.e., everything was proceeding in a textbook fashion such that there was every reason to expect the baby within the next four or five days in any event.  A weekend birth, of course, might have interfered with the doctor’s golf game.


In a third case, the mother lived in the country and had no easy access to neighbors, telephone, or transportation.  Accordingly, with her two children in tow, she began spending her days at the hospital awaiting her delivery.  The doctors took it upon themselves to suggest this was not a good idea, and thereafter induced the mother’s labor on her third baby.


In the fourth case, everything was proceeding normally except that the hospital had too many births going on, and so they gave a drug to the mother in order to delay her giving birth. This of course was done without the mother's knowing consent, and resulted in a one day difference in the birthdate. The delay might not have been crucial, but again the arrogance and medical malpractice of the hospital and doctors is predominant.


In a combination astrological/numerological/tarot methodology, the difference in a single day can have significant results on the future life of a newborn.  As an example, a variation of a few hours can result in the difference between a personality described as “mentally creative” (to the point of dishonesty) and “brilliant” (as well as “fixed and prone to arguments”) and a second personality profile of “mental accomplishment”, need for independence and freedom, and “a consuming desire for more knowledge that makes them progressive and usually very successful.”


A second example, separated by four days is the earlier version of a personality indicating change, curiosity, and restlessness (“one of the most unmarriageable cards in the deck”) as opposed to a personality a half week later of “congenial and considerate” and a desire of a “love affair that is timeless and eternal, perhaps out of this world.” 


In the third example, consider the idea of someone with a deep, abiding desire of the ultimate love affair, but saddled with a personality of restlessness in romantic relationships.  A soul’s destiny thwarted by a capricious decision of an unknown medical doctor?


Inducing Free Will


Inducing labor is the ultimate in violating both a newborn’s Free Will and pushing the baby into an altered destiny – an altered destiny very likely with residues of conflicting desires.  Such decisions are quite simply unacceptable and violate any and all concepts of love and/or medical professionalism.  One might as well do cocaine while pregnant or submit to C-Sections on the role of a dice or the need for a doctor's boat payment.


On a more positive note, the advance of natural childbirth as the preferred means of bringing life to the (family) party is surely to be welcomed.  Furthermore, there is the recognition that such things as underwater births (where the baby initially enters an atmosphere not radically different from the womb) and other ancient-slowly-becoming-modern techniques are becoming ever more viable.


There is also the tradition of naming a baby.  Instead of assuming the baby is the chattel of the parents (i.e. that they own the baby, lock, stock, and – as in the case of baby boys -- barrel), there is the sense of having a selection of names which can be brought to the newborn’s attention.  With a degree of sensitivity to the baby’s responses, a name more in line with the baby’s agenda might be derived. 


Inasmuch as the numerology of a name has its own importance – and the reason women changing their names upon marriage being decidedly not recommended – it is a pleasant thought that some parents might be a bit more open to the Free Will of the baby.  And if the baby grows up and wants to change their name, it doesn’t have to be considered to be a slap in the face to the parents.  (Although a slap in that direction might be recompense for the slap on the buttocks for the arriving soul.)


There is, in fact, hope.  But it’s inevitably dependent upon wisdom and knowledge.  Which is always the case.  Sorry about that.





[1] http://blueprint.bluecrossmn.com/topic/173;jsessionid=LVV43GZF... Inducing Labor, Blue Print for Health, February 1, 2000.

[2] http://www.mothering.com/index.htm Nancy Griffin, “Let the Baby Decide: The Case against Inducing Labor,” Mothering, #105, March/April 2001.

[3]  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1483134.stm “Intelligence Linked to Birth Weight,” BBC News, August 9, 2001.

[4] http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_344259.htm Health News, News in Science, August 10, 2001.

[5] Prevent Disease .com. (Exact link no longer found.)

[6]  “Numbers”, Time Magazine, July 7, 2003, page 21.

[7]  http://www.monitor.net/rachel/r512.html Rachel’s Environment & Health Weekly, September 19, 1996.

[8] <http://webcenter.health.webmd.netscape.com/content/article/13/3606_827.htm> "How to Have a Smarter Child", October 8, 2001.

[9] http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10103



Scapegoatology        Woundology


Health and Responsibility         Communications, Education, Health


Or forward to:


Pro-Life Choice


      Theory of Eating         Healthy State         Drug Pushers         Iatrogenic



                                                                                      The Library of ialexandriah       

2003© Copyright Dan Sewell Ward, All Rights Reserved                     [Feedback]    

                                                                                                            Back Next