From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:52:07 GMT
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

Hey, Ron you git.  Get with it!  I noticed you deleted the line where
I asked you to break your damn lines.  Well, DO IT.  It's kind of hard
to argue^H^H^H^H^Hdiscuss things with you when key words disappear into
the bit bucket.  Shesh.  'sides I get tired of breaking them for you.
Remember it's the key labelled <return> or <cr> ... oh, hell, it's
the big key on the right. Use it!

In article <1992Sep30.162959.8132@spectrum.xerox.com>, rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.154712.23310@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.195929.16359@spectrum.xerox.com>, rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
>>> Abortion is legal (in NY state) throughout an entire pregnancy!  
>>Is this true?  NY-ers?  I'm not up on the legalities in all states, but
>>this seems odd.
> [...] it would be very difficult to find a doctor to perform one 
> because of the risks involved.

So, I'd claim the question is moot, and not worth discussing.  If
it (very late abortions) never happens then why bother haggling on the
issue.

>>> That means the day before birth, a baby can be legally killed.  
>>Wouldn't they just do a cessarian (sp?) and remove a healthy baby?
>>Could you please give specific information (that can be checked) that
>>such a case has happened?  I think not.
[...]
No cases given.... I declare the point moot.

> Yes, they would have to probobly do a c-section, and smother or 
> otherwise kill the baby.  

Now this one is just a hoot.  A baby is c-sectioned is thus a *BABY*
and by everyone's definition here in this group, a person.  So it
would be illegal to smother it.  Besides I find it hard to beleive
such a case would arise.  I think you're grasping for straw (or setting
up a strawman).  Okay, so we set some fuzzy limits on extremely late
term abortions, for instance I could see (and we as a group could
discuss) a law that says "a fetus that reachs viablility can not
be aborted but must be removed by c-section and cared for; except
in cases of medical necessity" or some such.  Again, no bearing on
early term abortions -- and most of them are.

> But keep in mind that it would still be legal, according to the current law.

There are many things that are "legal" that I'd be uncomfortable if they
regularly occurred; but since they never happen I see no reason to write
overly restrictive laws that go beyond such cases and prohibit other
behaviors that I see no reason to regulate.

>>> One might argue that because the baby can't live on it's own, that it is not a 
>>> [lack of line wrap, lost a key word here]
>>> yet.  BULL!  A one year old baby can't live on it's own!  
>>> Where do we draw the line?     
>>
>>BULL, yourself.  A baby (born) can be taken care of by any number of
>>people.  A z/e/f (unborn) can be taken care of ONLY by the woman in
>>whose womb it is implanted.  THAT is the line we draw.
>
> Very incorrect here!

Ah, I don't think *ANYTHING* I stated there is incorrect... Try again.
Are you suggesting that other women (or men for that case) can take
care of a z/e/f that is pre-viable? (If this were the case, we probably
wouldn't be discussing abortion; there'd be fertilized egg depository
clinics)   Or that *no* other people can take care of a born baby?
Okay, my statement was sort of vague in the post-viable pre-birth
time slot...sue me.

> My youngest was born over 6 weeks premature.  

Ah, so she was born ... thus she's a baby ... thus those nice little
doctors and nurses on the neonatal ward could take care of her. 
Yup, I've written a coherent, consistent synopsis of the differnece
between a baby and a z/e/f.

> She could not have lived if not cared for in the neonatal intensive care unit

Yes, and 20-50 years ago she would have had a much higher probablity of
dying.  Does that make our ancestors murderers for not having the
appropriate technology?  And what bearing does this have on abortion?

> You are drawing the line at 'inside/outside'  I equate it with AGE!

Actually I'm not.  Personally I draw the line at viablility outside the
womb.  What makes a z/e/f a "person" in my mind is physical 
*independence* (in biological sense) from a *particular* individual.
This is not to say that young people don't need care from *any*
others; just that it is not demanded^H^H^H^H^H^H taken without due
process (:-) from ONE (possibly unwilling) individual.

> A z/e/f as you call them, removed from it's mother at the same
> age as my daughter was, would have the same chance of living as she did, 
> if properly cared for.  There were 2nd trimester babies in that NCU at
> the  hospital.  
> I have to use age as a measuring stick, rather than
> whether or not the baby is born.  

Yes, a c-sectioned z/e/f *AT THAT LATE DATE* would have the same chance 
of living and if removed *I* think it should be done without harm and
cared for *if* possible.  The key question again is were there 30th week
abortions being performed at the same hospital?  Sorry if my previous
postings weren't clear on the issue of extremely late term abortions.
Now if that's all your objecting to we can deal with that issue ....
but again I would argue that there is NO justification for extending
such a ban (if implemented, and I'm not arguing for one, just stating
*my* discomfort with abortions post-viablility) to the pre-viability
situation.  And I have seen no evidence to suggest that such a total
ban would be a "good thing".  Okay, I've drawn the line *I* am 
comfortable with.  Let me guess, where you'd draw the line:
  1 ns (1e-9 seconds) after fertilization of the egg?
Why?  It don't look like a baby, it don't feel like a baby, it don't
*smell* like a baby... maybe it's not a baby; so let's leave the
little premie babies alone and discuss the real issue: early term
abortions.

Yes, little babies in the ward, make you feel all warm and fuzzy.
But that has NO bearing on the issue (and I wish you'd stop bringing
it up) -- those babies had willing mothers.  Besides if you were so
worried about abortions why didn't you encourage potential mothers
to carry to term by adoption out of the waiting pool?  Seems, my 
newspaper carries pictures of kids needing adoption regularly.
Those mothers went through all that effort to produce a child just
for you and you spurn it?  They see the waiting queue and say
why bother since NO ONE wants the children that already exist.

You're getting tiresome, so I'll just delete the rest and skip
responding to it.

>Ron Goers @ Xerox Corporation     Email: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com

-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion