From: dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 8 Nov 92 01:57:11 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Nov5.215938.1617@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> 
hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
>> the term of pregnancy.  

> Could someone please cite some statistics on the frequency and/or
> absolute number of cases where a post-viable abortion is granted
> for (1) any reason (2) reasons outside strict physical health?

In 1988, the CDC reported that 7,332 abortions were performed
at or beyond the 21st week of pregnancy (data from 34 states).
Viability begins around the 22nd to 23rd week of pregnancy;
the third trimester is generally acknowledged to begin at 
the 24th week.  

I don't know how many of these abortions were performed because
of physical health reasons, but I do know that some are performed
because the child is either physically handicapped or mentally
retarded.  In other words, the abortion is designed to purposely
kill the child, and not to "terminate the pregnancy".

> If there aren't any (or many) cases then PLEASE let's not have some
> great big debate.  I consider it pretty boring to have flamefests over
> moot points (I know not everyone here holds that same opinion though :-)

I can't understand why the number of post-viability abortions
should have bearing on their "rightness" or "wrongness".  Why 
does it make a difference to you?  What is the largest annual  
number of post-viability abortions which you would be comfortable 
with?  10? 100? 1000?  Give me a specific number.  

> Personally, I feel a little queasy about such cases, but I figure
> that the woman involved has infinitely more information on the specifics
> of the case than any outside observer, and thus better equiped
> to make the decision.

The parents who abuse their children have more information on the
specifics of the case than any outside observer.  Would you argue
that child abusers are thus better equipped to make decisions about 
child-rearing than anyone else?

> Others may be outraged by the "injustice" of said exemptions, but
> even if I agreed with them (which I don't) I think there are plenty
> of more important and large "injustices" in the world which we should
> deal with first.  

And I think that there's no greater injustice than the killing 
of thousands of human beings every year.  If we can't value and
protect human life, then how do you expect to solve any other 
injustices committed against humans?  

> It's a question of priorities; I also think that the
> anti-abortionists (I'm specifically not using the term "pro-life" here
> since I'm only dealing with the abortion issue; not to be insulting)
> could better spend their time and effort working to DECREASE the number
> of unwanted pregnancies (through sex education and/or better availability
> of contraception devices) rather than force women to carry to term.

We've already done that.  We've gotten sex education into the 
schools.  We've handed out condoms.  It hasn't prevented every 
abortion.  (BTW, let's not equate unwanted pregnancy with abortion).

I'm for decreasing the number of abortions, just like you.  But 
we can't allow human beings to be killed simply because there 
exist other alternatives which *might* be used.  We can work 
to decrease the number of abortions through education, but it 
doesn't follow that abortion must be kept legal. 

>-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion