From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:06:07 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Aug27.234035.23177@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) said:
><1992Aug20.210023.11560@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman):
>>> 
>>>    The figure on third trimester abortions is that they represent
>>> less than one in one thousand abortions performed in America.  
>>
>>1/1000 * (1.5 million) = 1500 babies per year = 4 viable babies per day,
>>every single day of the year, that are put to death for no fault of their
>>own.   So this is what America stands for, is it.

Actually, the numbers I read say it is less than 1/10 of 1%, which puts the
actual number at 1/1100 * (1.3 million) = less than 1200 fetuses.

>Well, Suzanne, I can say this: 
>A third trimester fetus can survive independently of the mother. 

Very good.

>That means all abortions should be outright banned in the third
>trimester because no woman needs to kill a fetus that old, because
>s/he can survive independently. 

This doesn't follow from your above statement.  Although I agree that
once the fetus has been removed from the woman the abortion has been
accomplished.  What happens to the fetus at that point is of no
consequence to me.

>Unless pro-choice really means a woman has a right to demand that the
>fetus be killed simply because she wants to kill someone who can't
>fight back, there is absolutely, positively no way between here and
>three trips to hell and back, that the woman has any right to a dead
>fetus in the third trimester. 

This paragraph is so bizarre in concept and description as to be
meaningless.  Pro-choice *doesn't* mean a woman can have someone killed
just because she wants them killed.  And pro-choice doesn't give a woman
the right to a dead fetus as the law requires the proper disposal of
medical waste.

BTW, a woman (or man) for that matter can *demand* anything.  They just
can't *have* everything they demand.

>In short, the law should demand that the procedure result in a live
>fetus and the use of an incubator, with no exceptions. 

Gee, can we whine like Suzanne does about the general public having to
*pay* for the incubation?

>There is no reason not to enforce this law quite vigorously. 

My, my...  These Republicans sure do want a lot of restrictive government,
don't they?

>Not even for deformities. No law presently allows killing someone
>because of deformities. 
>
>It is this reason that "pro-choice" has always and always will mean
>"anti-life." 

What reason?  How can supporting a woman's right to give birth "always
[will] mean 'anti-life'"?

Could you explain this please?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion