From: 00cmmiller@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: 30 Dec 92 14:44:53 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

In article <1992Dec28.031014.15105@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
> In article <1992Dec25.034713.4354@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec23.065254.17977@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>
>>>
>>>Can you produce any evidence that anybody is performing post-26 week
>>>terminations and *not* attempting to salvage the fetus? So far, you've
>>>completly failed to do this. 



>>

>>Okay, Mark, if a 28-week pregnant woman asked for a D&E abortion, and there 
>>were NO unusual medical conditions diagnosed, do you think, from the viewpoint
>>of medical ethics, she should be allowed to get her D&E? After that, please


only one thing to say....
it's d&c, not d&e.  at least get your terminology correct before you
go off half-cocked.






>>answer the same question from your own personal moral viewpoint. If the two 
>>answers differ, will you finally admit that the pseudo-proposal to "handle
>>abortion as strictly a medical matter" is naive and unworkable, since medical
>>ethics alone can't address the vast tapestry of legal/historical/sociological/
>>economic factors that legislation can?
>>
> From the medical ethics viewpoint: No. Medical ethics require that
> ever effort be made to salvage a viable fetus, and a 28 weeker is
> connsidered to be (marginally) viable.
> From my personal viewpoint: No, because my personal ethics also
> require that I make every effort to salvage a viable fetus, and a 28
> weeker is considered to be (margianally) viable.
> 
> Medical ethics is certainly more capable of addressing the vast
> tapestry of legal/historical/sociological/economic factors as they
> relate to a medical choice then are a bunch of lawyers.
> Speaking of economics Kebbin...
> You have repeatedly argued in favor of legislation that would,
> according to you, force medical intervention to save the lifes of
> fetuses after termination of pregnancy. You have done this without
> providing a shred of proof that ever effort is not already made to
> save viable fetuses.
> Here's a hypothetical situation for you Kebbin. And note that, unlike
> yours, it is grounded in reality.
> A couple opts for abortion because of severe developmental defects.
> Ultrasonography indicates 24 weeks. Pre-viability, but close. Labor is
> induced, and, suprisingly, results in a live birth.
> Despite the fact that the fetus was estimated to be below the nominal
> date for viablility, your legislation has passed, so we admit the
> neonate to the NICU. 
> 10-12 months later, the infant is ready to be discharged. We'll even
> assume a few miracles have occured, and the infant is not in such bad
> shape as to require permanent custodial care. The parents had opted
> for abortion, and want nothing to do with the infant (remember, it is
> *severely* defective). Are you willing to foot the bill for this
> infants care? *Somebody* has to. And it's the legislation that *you*
> argued in favor of that is responsible for his/her survival. Or are
> you going to reverse yourself and say the parents should be *forced*
> to foot the bill? If you do, I'll be sure and point that out in the
> "male choice" threads where you claim men should not be forced to
> support unwanted offspring.
> 
> --
>                   Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
> These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
> your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
> Ghost of Elvis. So there.