From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Kebbin Darcy:  Net.Engineer, Net.Lawyer, Net.Idiot, Net.Asshole...
Summary: The list is endless... 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 15:43:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.205911.1082@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <#bjzhpb@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>
>>I discussed this with Ms. Bartley.  She used the analogy that, say,
>>it was not illegal to kill your child on the child's seventh
>>birthday.  She said she would be uncomfortable with that being
>>legal.  My response was, ok, say that it's been legal to do that
>>for the last 20 years.  Say that we have absolutely no evidence
>>that large numbers of children are being killed at 7.  Actually,
>>we have no evidence at all that any child had been killed at 7 just 
>>because it was legal.  Now, I'm fine with it being legal, but
>>not done.  She wasn't.  She seemed to want a law against it "just
>>in case".
>>
>>In case of WHAT, I say!  IF it becomes a problem, then we make it
>>illegal and deal with it.  But I'm uncomfortable with passing lots
>>of laws just because they sound good or make us feel better.  I
>>want to know that the law is dealing with a real situation.
>
>You don't think there is any room for preventitive laws, Cathi? You're
>willing for the blood of unnecessary late-term abortions to stain your
>hands BEFORE you would allow (overdue) restrictive legislation to be passed?

Oh, good imagary there, Mr. Net.Director.

>Isn't this the same "retroactive social planning" that has made such a mess
>of our government already?

Define "retroactive social planning", please, Mr. Net.Dictionary.

>
>Look, the situation is quite simple:

Maybe it is for you Mr. Net.Simpleton.

>
>	*IF* there are so few late-term abortions, and *IF* they were all for
>	good reasons, then it doesn't cause any harm to pass restrictive 
>	legislation, since in practice there would have to be reasonable
>	exceptions, e.g. mortal risk to the mother, severe fetal deformity,
>	etc. And it could do some actual good to pass such laws, if they could
>	be traded for a _permanent_ guarantee of the Right to Choose for non-
>	late-term cases, which make up the vast majority of all abortions.

The ease with which you are willing to trade away the rights of women really
scares me, Kevin.  Especially since you call yourself a "Pro-Choicer".  I
do still wonder if maybe you're not just a better version of "Dennis Hall".

I don't agree with Elizabeth's opinion that we should pass restrictive late-
term abortion legislation, but at least she has valid reasons for wanting
the legislation passed.

>
>	*IF*, on the other hand, there _are_ late-term abortions being performed
>	for trivial reason, then this is ALREADY a problem, and well overdue for
>	legislation.

Please provide some proof that late-term abortions are being performed for
"trivial" reasons, Kebbin.  You're starting to sound like Eric Gorr with your
"if"'s.

>
>Either way, I don't see why late-term restrictions should be opposed with 
>nearly the same fervor as non-late-term restrictions.

What are you going to do once you've traded away the rights of women to
obtain abortions, Kebbie?  Trade away their right to vote?

>
>>Or, to look at this from a more crass point of view - any woman
>>that decides to have a 7-month abortion "on a whim" clearly has
>>some responsibility problems.  If we make this abortion illegal,
>>we will soon be presenting this horrible, irresponsible woman
>>with a NEWBORN BABY to care for.  
>
>If it can be proven that this woman is in fact "horrible, irresponsible", 
>then she should never receive custody of the child. Period. End of sentence.

Now you're talking about trading away the rights mothers to have custody
of their children.  Wonderful.

>
>>There's the first rule of good engineering:  If it ain't broke,
>>don't fix it.
>
>I doubt that's the first rule, Cathi. How about:
>
>	Anticipate problems _before_ they occur, instead of "putting out
>	fires" afterwards

You have engineering credentials also?  Why are you working for CFC then?

>
>which is exactly what restrictive late-term abortion laws purport to do.

Restrictive late-term abortion laws purport to restrict late-term abortions.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=National Coming Out Day is Oct 11th, 1992. Closets Are A Place To Put Clothes=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion