From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:51:20 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


In article <1992Apr9.195730.10916@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

>There is no middle ground IF one or both sides holds an extreme position
>and refuses to accept anything except their extreme position.

>Examples of extreme positions (IMO):

>(1) unrestricted abortions at any time for any reason.

Hey that sounds a whole bunch like my extreme position.

I believe that laws that try to deal with non-issues are generally silly
and often times dangerous.  I don't see there being a problem with
women procuring abortions after 6 months for reasons many of us feel
are trivial.  If you believe such a problem exists, I'd like to hear
about it.  Your examples seem extremely unlikely.  Are you aware of any
real life examples that would fit your hypothetical examples?

>   Eg. You're due next week and there are no medical complications,
>       it's OK to change your mind, decide you don't want a child, and
>       abort the fetus.

Why would someone go through 40 some weeks of pregnancy and then
suddenly decide this?  Also there are few doctors that perform late
term abortions, and none I'm aware of for non-life threatening reasons.
I would think the cost alone would make this an un-reasonable occurrence.

>   Eg. Your wife is pregnant, even though she's due next week and there are
>       no medical complications, you decide you don't want a child and
>       that it's OK for your wife get an abortion.

The man can decide this all he wants.  He can not perform the abortion
against the woman's wishes.

>   Eg. You'd rather get pregnant and have an abortion than use contraceptives,
>       you knew you were pregnant but were too lazy to get an early-term
>       abortion, now you think its OK to abort the 8-month-old fetus.

To lazy to get an abortion but not to lazy to go through with the
pregnancy?  Are you sure that such people really exist?

Why I would oppose restrictions on third tri-mester abortions is because
they attempt to solve a non-problem and they end up making it more
difficult for women that have what many of us would call legitimate
reasons for needing or wanting an abortion.  How would a law be worded
that would stop your above examples and yet allow an abortion for
mother's health risks or severe deformity of the fetus?

This does not mean we couldn't legislate how third tri-mester abortions
are performed.  We could encourage the live pre-mature enducement of
a fetus rather than abortion.  With the proper wording of such
legislation, there is a reasonable chance I would be willing to
compromise in such areas.

I really don't see a lot of reason for pro-choice to compromise.  With
upcoming events and new technology, the pro-choice position will
eventually win.  The fetus worshipers have been more vocal and more
heavily financed and single issue, but that is in the process of
shifting.  A woman's right to her body is something we should not
be compromising over.  I'm all for working with pro-lifers to deal
with the issues that result in so many un-wanted pregnancys, but I
would oppose most any legislation that would restrict the woman's
right to control her body.

There are many ways to encourage women to make the decision early
so to avoid late term abortions.  I would be in favor of encouraging
the woman to make the decision early rather than punishing women
who do not.

>-Brian

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion