From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 18:21:00 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <l!_ps+.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>I feel that a third-trimester fetus is physically too similar to an
>infant to decide that one deserves legal protection but the other
>doesn't.  Even thought a third-trimester fetus isn't born yet, it can
>still feel pain, and it has a brain that's wired up to handle thought.
>I can't say with certainty that a third-trimester fetus doesn't
>possess consciousness, so I can't say that killing it would be
>permissible.

I faced a similar quandary when I went from pro-life to pro-choice
sometime ago.  I finally came to realize that it is too dangerous
to take away a woman's right to her body, but I was very 
un-comfortable with a late term abortion.  

You mention above that a third trimester fetus is very similar
to an infant.  But a major difference between the two is that 
a third trimester fetus is wholly dependent on a specific person,
while an infants dependency can be transferred to someone else.
It does not require the use of force to care for the infant that
it would require for a fetus.  If the life of the infant is
so important to you, then you can make the sacrifices necessary
to care for that infant.  That is not always possible with a 
fetus.  It requires forcing someone else to make the sacrifices 
you believe are necessary.

>On the other hand, I don't want to infringe on the woman's rights to
>her own body.  If something happens to damage the fetus, then I think
>she should have the right to abort it even at this late stage.  And
>even if she undergoes some personal tragedy or hardship that would
>really make her want to abort the fetus because she couldn't deal with
>a baby, I think we ought to grant her the right to abort it for this
>reason, too.

With a late term fetus, I would much prefer, if possible, that it be 
removed alive.  I'm sure all these pro-lifers would be more than 
happy to pay for the medical costs and then care for the infant 
after it is removed.  After all it would be saving a life, right?
However, when we try to legislate such action, I have trouble 
with that.  How would this legislation be written?  How does 
law differentiate from a case were the woman's life or health
is in danger if an operation to remove the fetus is performed?
I just think these type of decisions are best left up to the
medical community.

>But I don't want to allow a woman to say, "Oh gee, seven months
>pregnant... you know, I really don't feel like having a baby at all."
>with no better reason than this.  This just wouldn't be fair to the
>person within her; she should have made up her mind before the fetus
>had a mind.  ;)

I just don't see this as a problem.  If you can come up with an
example or two of this happening in the real world, maybe I would 
reconsider my position.  But I think laws that try to address non-
problems are either very silly or in the case of this legislation,
possibly dangerous.

>So what's the solution?  Is there some way to construct a law that
>would prohibit third-trimester abortions without a "good reason"?
>Who's to say what a "good reason" would be?  Or should we deny all
>requests to perform abortions during the third trimester?  Or should
>we allow them all?  And if you support either of the two extremes, why?

I don't believe I am in a good position to determine what is or isn't
a good reason.  I have seen no workable legislation that can address
the various situations.  If you were to propose legislation, I would
at least read and consider it.  But nobody here has proposed such
legislation that addresses my concerns over the dangerousness of
the various situations.  So I support leaving the decision between 
the woman and her doctor and leaving legislation out of it.  I'm 
all for encouraging women to make the decision in a timely manner,
but I oppose legislation that could un-duly harm women.

>I honestly don't know, and I'd like to hear what other people think.

Okay here is one simple suggestion that would encourage the large 
majority of abortions to be done early term.  All first tri-mester
abortions could be payed for by the government.  This would encourage
all women to make the decision regarding continuing the pregnancy
early.  They will know if they wait too long, they will have to pay
for their own abortion.  This would also encourage sexually active
women to find out if they are pregnant early in the term, because they
will then have time to make the decision.  This will also eliminate
the problem of women putting of abortion while they save up money
for the procedure.  

Sure this doesn't have much chance of ever passing as long as the 
religious right is involved in politics, but it would accomplish 
the goal of promoting early term abortions over late term abortions.

>     << Brian >>

Dan King
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:38622 talk.religion.misc:17167