From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:58:32 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

You raised some good points, Peter; let me try to respond to them.

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>mas@Cadence.COM (Masud Khan) writes:
>>>
>>>A born baby is dependant on it's mother,
>
>>Not in the same way a fetus is dependent on its mother!  If a woman
>>wants to give up her baby, she can just hand it to you, but there's no
>>risk to her in keeping it.
>
>Unless she is in a place like Somalia, where breastfeeding is depriving
>the woman of needed resources.  Sarajevo may not be far behind.

Hmmm.  This looks like it would fall under the category of the
mother's life being placed in jeopardy by providing something which
the baby can't live without, so if there is no other woman around who
could breastfeed the baby nor any food that would be edible to it, I
think it would make perfect sense (though I expect it will shock the
sensibilities of some people) that the baby ought to be killed to save
the mother.  This is just an application of my firm belief that a
person ought to be able to refuse to provide another person with
necessary bodily resources that the other person would die without, if
so providing would place the first person at risk.

>>  If a pregnant woman wants to give up her
>>fetus, well, there's no way to do so other than killing the fetus,
>>unless you can think of a way...?  And keeping it introduces
>>significant risks to her body.
>
>So does breastfeeding to a malnourished woman.

If the woman wants to assume these significant risks, then she may.
If she does not and there is some way for her to transfer the
responsibility to another person, then she should.  If there is no way
for her to escape these risks without killing the baby, then is there
any reason why she should not be allowed to, if she so decides?

>>>is not self-supporting,
>
>>More so than a fetus.  It can breathe, and it can eat.
>
>The fetus can breathe amniotic fluid after the first trimester, and
>swallow it, too.

The original claim was that a baby is not self-supporting.  Put a baby
in a crib for an hour, and do the same with a four-month fetus; is
there any doubt that one will certainly survive while the other will
certainly not?

>>>can't
>>>really think for it's self (apart from instinctive, God given reactions)
>>>so what you are saying that a baby is not a person,
>
>>Correct, at least in how I'm currently seeing the term defined.  But
>>our society says it's bad to kill anything needlessly, and an infant
>>can just as easily be given to an adoption agency if its mother
>>doesn't want it.  How can a mother deal with a fetus she doesn't want?
>>(A hint: "keep it anyway" is the wrong answer.)
>
>Maybe to you, but not to most women, who get an abortion because the
>baby will put a cramp in their lifestyle *after* it is born.

Well, if a woman has decided that she doesn't want a baby, then she
has to decide if she wants to go through birth and put it up for
adoption, or go through an abortion.  There's _much_ more to having a
baby than just waiting for nine months, so if a woman has decided that
she doesn't want to go through childbirth, she shouldn't have to.

>>>what about a physically
>>>disabled *person* or a mentally disabled *person*,
>
>>What about them?  Look at the famous physicist Steven Hawking (sp?).
>>He's about as physically disabled as anyone can be, but nobody would
>>argue that he's a person!
>
>Er...I'm not sure that's what you meant to say.

Right.  I meant to have a 'not' in there before 'a person'.  Thanks!  :-X

>>>how do you know which unwanted
>>>child is not going to be happy? ask any "unwanted" child if he/she wish
>>>they were dead most would probably be thankful for the oppurtunity of life,
>
>>Huh?  Where does the happiness of unwanted children come into this?
>
>Stop playing dumb, Brian.  You're hardly a clueless newbie.

Thanks for the compliment.  ;-)  But honestly, I don't think "the
happiness of unwanted children" comes into this at all.  It's
extremely poor logic to say that a fetus ought to be aborted because
it will develop into an unhappy child -- who can say that?  I
certainly can't, and I've learned that it's not really a valid point
at all.

>>>I agree that there may be certain circumstances where abortion should
>>>be considered ie when the mothers life may be in danger or possibly rape
>
>>What degree of danger is necessary?  How many doctors must concur on
>>the risks?  What if, by the time the courts have decided that the risk
>>justifies the abortion, the woman has already died?
>
>What's the courts got to do with it?  If two doctors, one of whom
>has never performed an abortion and does not stand to profit from one,
>agree the mother's life is in danger, there will be no problem from
>the courts.

Mm, _if_ the law is written that way.  Even if it is, this creates
problems: you'll have "pro-choice" doctors being more lenient in their
judgements than "pro-life" doctors, and these views may get in the way
of accurate assessments of the woman's condition, and some hospitals
may be known as having enough "pro-choice" doctors to ensure that a
woman can get an abortion there more often than at other hospitals...

>>And as for rape: "possibly"?  Please explain.
>
>Good question.  I've been quizzing Frank ODwyer about the famous Irish
>Supreme Court case, and he cannot rule out the possibility that the
>"rape" involved was STATUTORY rape, the child being simply underage.
>
>Statutory rape no longer exists in Florida, thanks to a judge's
>decision that to make illegal a consensual liaison on the grounds
>that one party is underage, is a violation of the right to privacy
>guaranteed by the Florida constitution.

I haven't been following that debate, so this situation appears at
first glance to be a really stupid decision.  But what does this have
to do with abortion, unless you allow abortions only in cases of rape?

>>>But at the end of the day the decision lies with the mother
>>>but it doesn't change the fact that it is morally wrong to kill something
>>>living without a valid reason (not for convenience sake).
>...
>> And how do you feel about
>>the thousands starving in Bosnia?
>...
>>  Why not devote your efforts to
>>helping them before you try to crusade for fetuses?
>
>This is so unfair and intellectually dishonest, it deserves a post
>all to itself.  Look for a post, "Why can't we work together?" later
>this week.
>
>Clue: there are only so many hours in a day, only so many dollars in
>our pockets.

I meant it seriously.

Your sentiment is one I've heard echoed often, and one which
disappoints me: "It takes too much time and money to end suffering in
a country that we only hear about on TV, but it's very easy to
blockade abortion clinics only a few miles away!"

The popular sentiment among the pro-lifers I've spoken with seems to
be that Bosnia's far away and "isn't our problem", whereas we can work
to make things better for ourselves here in America.  Then, in this
magnaminous attempt to "make things better", pro-lifers jeer and
assault women who go to abortion clinics seeking legal abortions.

If the pro-lifers REALLY value human life and REALLY want to make
things better, then STOP trying to coerce women into not having
abortions!  Work towards reducing the need for abortions!  Give your
time to public-service groups that teach sex-ed and distribute birth
control, and give your money to research that would make pregnancy and
birth safer and less expensive!  Work WITH us, not AGAINST us!

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
      Nolite te bastardes    Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
        carborundorum.                                           -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion