From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:52:17 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
#>In article <23919@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil
#>(Ronald Bense) writes:

#>Is it really? Would you care to take over the care of *one* 7 month
#>premie? Especially one that is to be aborted because of genetic defects?

>If this statement really had any validity, it would also have to
>conclude that because one's not willing to take care of an unwanted
>newborn, the newborn ought to be disposable at their parents' will.

Not hardly. Please notice that to be aborted, it is not yet born, whereas
a 'premmie' by definition, is already born. I do admit I could have
worded this a little better, but then I'm beginning to think that Frau
F has me killfiled. Too bad.

>Seeing as that's not the case, you have not presented here a coherent
>or sensible justification for killing a fetus that does not have to be
>killed for a pregnancy to be stopped.

Steve, you've totally missed the point here. Stopping the pregnancy
was not the point of this at all. It was stopping the life of an entity
that would only know pain and suffering, *before* it could ever be aware
of them.

#>I see you saying this often, yet you never seem to win any points. Ok,
#>here are some cases where putting the fetus to death is justified. It
#>is discovered in the third-tri that the fetus is anencephalic, or that
#>the fetus is missing a liver, or that there appear to be multiple defects,
#>as in poor or miising bone growth, open spine, missing limbs, and/or
#>internal defects such as lack of an esophagus/stomach/intestines, all
#>of which can cause the fetus upon birth, to die shortly thereafter.
#>I only state these, as they are enough to refute your statement.

>None of these conditions are legally allowable for infanticide, Ron.
>An infant, no matter what the conditions - and check your laws before
>you refute this - cannot be killed for any reason. That's infanticide
>and it's illegal.

I'm not talking about infanticide. Never did I mention this, nor even
remotely relate to it in this post. But remember, you can refuse treatment,
which in some cases has the same effect.

>Consistently, a fetus that does not have to be killed by said
>procedures, should be allowed to have the life that they have, and the
>wish of the woman to kill the fetus, should be ignored and literally
>laughed at.

No fetus has to killed. But no woman should have to give of herself
to a fetus. To say otherwise would be discriminatory in a legal sense.

>They laugh at any other infanticide request.

Not hardly. Take a look at the anencaphalic infant they were talking
about in Florida. Nobody was laughing at that one, and as a matter of
fact, many were seriously angry that the judgement didn't allow a merciful
end to that life.

>The reasons you state are inconsistent and totally discriminatory.

Of course they're discriminatory, they make a distinction. Otherwise
what's the point of this discussion? Now as to whether they are inconsistent,
you've yet to show they are, without bringing in unrelated topics.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion