From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:09:37 GMT

In <1992Nov4.144046.11130@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>(I set followups to talk.abortion.
> Interested a.a readers are encouraged to go there.)

>mas@Cadence.COM (Masud Khan) writes:
>>
>>A born baby is dependant on it's mother,

>Not in the same way a fetus is dependent on its mother!  If a woman
>wants to give up her baby, she can just hand it to you, but there's no
>risk to her in keeping it.

Unless she is in a place like Somalia, where breastfeeding is depriving
the woman of needed resources.  Sarajevo may not be far behind.

>  If a pregnant woman wants to give up her
>fetus, well, there's no way to do so other than killing the fetus,
>unless you can think of a way...?  And keeping it introduces
>significant risks to her body.

So does breastfeeding to a malnourished woman.

>>is not self-supporting,

>More so than a fetus.  It can breathe, and it can eat.

The fetus can breathe amniotic fluid after the first trimester, and
swallow it, too.

>>can't
>>really think for it's self (apart from instinctive, God given reactions)
>>so what you are saying that a baby is not a person,

>Correct, at least in how I'm currently seeing the term defined.  But
>our society says it's bad to kill anything needlessly, and an infant
>can just as easily be given to an adoption agency if its mother
>doesn't want it.  How can a mother deal with a fetus she doesn't want?
>(A hint: "keep it anyway" is the wrong answer.)

Maybe to you, but not to most women, who get an abortion because the
baby will put a cramp in their lifestyle *after* it is born.

>>what about a physically
>>disabled *person* or a mentally disabled *person*,

>What about them?  Look at the famous physicist Steven Hawking (sp?).
>He's about as physically disabled as anyone can be, but nobody would
>argue that he's a person!

Er...I'm not sure that's what you meant to say.

>>how do you know which unwanted
>>child is not going to be happy? ask any "unwanted" child if he/she wish
>>they were dead most would probably be thankful for the oppurtunity of life,

>Huh?  Where does the happiness of unwanted children come into this?

Stop playing dumb, Brian.  You're hardly a clueless newbie.

>>I agree that there may be certain circumstances where abortion should
>>be considered ie when the mothers life may be in danger or possibly rape

>What degree of danger is necessary?  How many doctors must concur on
>the risks?  What if, by the time the courts have decided that the risk
>justifies the abortion, the woman has already died?

What's the courts got to do with it?  If two doctors, one of whom
has never performed an abortion and does not stand to profit from one,
agree the mother's life is in danger, there will be no problem from
the courts.

>And as for rape: "possibly"?  Please explain.

Good question.  I've been quizzing Frank ODwyer about the famous Irish
Supreme Court case, and he cannot rule out the possibility that the
"rape" involved was STATUTORY rape, the child being simply underage.

Statutory rape no longer exists in Florida, thanks to a judge's
decision that to make illegal a consensual liaison on the grounds
that one party is underage, is a violation of the right to privacy
guaranteed by the Florida constitution.

>>But at the end of the day the decision lies with the mother
>>but it doesn't change the fact that it is morally wrong to kill something
>>living without a valid reason (not for convenience sake).

>Are you opposed to hunting for sport, then? 

In some cases, it is the only way to keep down a population whose natural 
predators are gone.

> And how do you feel about
>the thousands starving in Bosnia?

And how do you feel about them?  Note my preceding comments on Sarajevo!

>  Why not devote your efforts to
>helping them before you try to crusade for fetuses?

This is so unfair and intellectually dishonest, it deserves a post
all to itself.  Look for a post, "Why can't we work together?" later
this week.

Clue: there are only so many hours in a day, only so many dollars in
our pockets.

>>It is a well know fact that women who have gone through abortion go through
>>very serious traumas.

>A very well-known myth, you mean.  Surgeon General Koop, a pro-lifer,
>ran a study on post-abortion trauma, and was forced to admit that no,
>there appears to be no correlation between abortion and trauma.

Brian, it is you who are repeating a very well-known myth.

The words of Surgeon General Koop, from an interview in the 
_Rutherford Institute Magazine_, Spring 1989:
	  "Instead of saying, `the Surgeon General could not find sufficient
	evidence to issue a scientifically statistically accurate report
	that could not be assailed, the Associated Press said, `He could
	find no evidence.'  I know there are detrimental effects.  I have
	counseled women with this problem over the last fifteen years.
	There is no doubt about it....When I got home, my wife was in a
	frenzy. `You won't believe what they are saying on television,'
	she said. `[Dan] Rather said it, Brokaw said it, Jennings said
	it, that you had not been able to find any evidence that there
	are psychological effects of abortion.'
	  "So that's where it all began.  And I spent...until about one
	one o'clock in the morning, doing as much damage control as I could."

Excerpted in _The Abortion Injury Report_, the same issue in which 
it is reported that the 11-year old daughter of Catherine Pierce, a 
woman who died of a LEGAL abortion, received a $2 million settlement
out of court from the abortion clinic responsible for her mother's death.

Chris Lyman, in case you are reading this and are curious, ask Susan Garvin
to send you a clipping of the article from this newsletter she loves to hate,
in the May 1990 issue.

This was one "_alleged_" victim of legal abortion.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity