From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:50:45 GMT

In article <23919@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>>This is garbage Mark.   Since we are talking third trimester here, post
>>viability by definition, and all third trimester abortions include either
>
>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.

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. 

>>inducing labor or doing a c-section (after the baby has been put to death
>>of course), there is NO MEDICAL REASON to insist on putting the baby to
>>death before inducing the labor or doing the c-section.
>
>>You loose.  Just by not using your head.
>
>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. 

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. 

They laugh at any other infanticide request. 

The reasons you state are inconsistent and totally discriminatory.

>Ron
>
>Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.


=============================================================================
Question: If you don't have truck bombs and thousands of fanatics to
	  sacrifice their lives and drive them, how do you scare a 
	  nation into giving in to your demands?

Answer:   Buy coat hangers and encourage women to kill themselves
	  with them and call yourself "pro-choice".
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|                                                                           |
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
=============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion