From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: How many deaths are insignificant? (was Re: THE THIRD TRIMESTER MYTH.
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 21:20:34 GMT

<1992Jul20.032555.29095@ncsu.edu>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) said:
>Mr. Kaufman, I have never denied that the percentage of 
>abortions performed during the third trimester is small. 
>You're welcome to brush off the deaths of thousands of
>unborn children as only representing "one tenth of one
>percent" of all abortions, but I think many people can't 
>display the same callousness towards the deaths of these
>children as you do. 

What children?

>But how many late term abortions would cause you to re-think 
>your position? It's obvious that you think thousands of 
>annual deaths are insignificant, 

I believe the numbers are something like 1400.  Hardly "thousands".

>                                 so perhaps we should start 
>at 10,000 and move on up. Pick an absolute number; don't hide 
>your callousness behind percentages.  

The assininity of this approach Doug is that we the people routinely
allow the government to arbitrarily decide how many deaths are
reasonable, in all sorts of activities.  Reducing the speed limit from
65 to 55 mph saved an enormous number of lives.  Reducing it to 45mph
would save even more.  Heck, outlawing cars (execpt for emergency
vehicles) would save hundreds of thousands of lives.  But the government
doesn't do it.  We the people don't demand it.  We have all decided
that the convenience of driving 55 mph is worth the deaths of thousands
of people.

We also decide that the convenience of cleaning our toilets with
poisonous chemicals is worth the death of hundreds of children annually
from poisoning.  If we didn't think it was worth it we would outlaw
poisonous chemicals.

>And it's not true that every one of these abortions is necessary 
>to save the life or health of the mother. Some women delay 
>the decision to abort because they couldn't arrange it earlier, 

You mean because the courts wouldn't allow it earlier, or they had to get
enough money to afford a private abortion.

>or their circumstances changed during the pregnancy, or because 
>the abortionist underestimated the gestational age of the fetus, 
>among other reasons. And why can't the abortionist induce labor, 
>instead of killing the child? 

I'm sure he can.  Why do you believe it never happens?  Why are you
arguing so vehemently over such insignificant numbers?

>Some of these abortions are performed on children with Down's 
>Syndrome. Typically, a procedure known as "amniocentesis" is 
>used to screen for genetic defects after the 14th-16th week
>of pregnancy, and several weeks pass before the results can  
>be known to the parents. Sometimes the procedure has to repeated,
>and occasionally it's not until the 20th week or even later that 
>the parents become aware of the child's condition. 

Yeah?  What's your point?

>Some people don't have a problem with early term abortions, 
>but they may have some objections to late term abortions.  

I have no objections with up to the moment of birth abortions.

>Is it wrong to make them aware of late term abortions, and 
>the circumstances under which they are performed? 

As long as you tell the truth.


Gordon
-- 
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.