From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: compromise
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:56:11 GMT

In article <BxD2p5.3BJ.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>[Since this is solely about abortion, follow-ups set to talk.
>abortion]
>In article <BxCtI5.8ut@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>#In article <XPTSBFRQ@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>##In article <Bx8wxx.6Dz@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>###Any state in the Union can permit an abortion on the day before birth.
>###
>###"Pro-choicers" sweep this under the rug.  It's not so politically pleasant.
>###(Although it is politically correct.)
>##
>##We don't sweep it under the rug, we are quite happy about it.  We would be
>##happier if there were even fewer restrictions upon abortion roghts.
>#
>#Who's "we"?  Are you a spokesman?  Finally, a leader arises!
>#
>#Questions for anybody considering themselves pro-choice: 
>#
>#.    Does David S. Auer represent the pro-choice movement?
>#
>#.    Are you "quite happy" with legal abortion on the day before birth,
>#     where the mother's health is not threatened?
>#
>#No; no.
>
>Auer is representative of the pro-choice movement.  The official
>position of most groups that support legal abortion is that
>abortion is a medical procedure, and as such, the decision to
>have an abortion should be left up to the pregnant woman and
>the attending physician and not subject to legal restrictions
>beyond those that apply to all other medical procedures.

Name one "other medical procedure", besides the abortion of a viable
fetus, which needlessly and deliberately kills a human organism.

>I am quite happy with the notion that abortions should be freely
>available to any woman who requests one and has a doctor who
>is willing to perform the procedure.  I'm not concerned about
>the possibility of an abortion the day before birth for several
>reasons.  I've seen no evidence that it's ever happened, for one
>thing.  

I've never had anyone I know be murdered by being thrown into a vat
of sulphuric acid. Should that act therefore be legal?

>I've seen no evidence that there are any doctors willing
>to perform such abortions, for another.  

Do you deny the existence of some doctors who would do ANYTHING for a
buck? 

>I've seen no evidence
>that any women have requested that their pregnancies be terminated
>and that the fetus be killed at that late stage, either.  

Just because Susie Garvin "sees no evil^Hdence" doesn't preclude the
possibility that such evidence does in fact exist, or that the practice
is occurring without leaving any evidence at all.

>I'd
>rather that we preserved a woman's right to bodily integrity
>than that we enact some laws to make some people feel better
>about covering all possibilities.  

Since you claim that no such abortions are occurring, just _whose_ bodily
autonomy (not "integrity", btw) do you suppose you're "preserving"?

>I'd rather that we not have
>government-defined exemptions for politically acceptable
>reasons.  

Empty words. All laws are "government-defined" and, at some level, 
"politically acceptable". What you say here is so vague that it could apply 
to ANY legal exception whatsoever.

>I think that the two people actually involved in
>the procedure itself are capable of making this decision.

Since you only identify two "people" as being involved in the procedure, does 
this mean you rest your abortion position on nebulous, arbitrary "personhood"
arguments, Susie? I thought you were a better Bodily Autonomist than that.

								- Kevin