From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  1 Sep 92 20:53:05 GMT

In <1992Aug30.072618.32178@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <nyikos.715045081@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <1992Aug27.184937.26265@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.co
>>
>> >In  <nyikos.714855156@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Pete
>> >> In <1992Aug24.054408.26192@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm
>> >>
>> >> >In  <nyikos.714423816@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
>> >> >(Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> >> >>
>> Thumbsucking is the suckling reflex only from the point where the thumb
>> touches the cheek.  As to how it got there, or whether it went straight
>> to the mouth without touching the cheek, that could be a willed action.
>> Also, the fetus may have some conscious control over how long the
>> thumbsucking is continued.

>And it *could* be sublimating a desire for a cigarette.  But there's no
>reason to believe that it's anything more than reflex.

But the bottom line is, do we stake the life of a being who is already
quite possibly sentient on it, or do we give it the benefit of the doubt?
A being, by the way, which would become one of us unless some drastic
force intervenes.


>> >> Read what I wrote again.  The only reason I might consider prohibiting
>> >> abortion prior to the sixth week is if the consequences for the woman
>> >> of allowing it are unacceptable.  If they are unacceptable to the woman,
>> >> then of course I will defend her right not to be aborted against her
>> >> will.  [actually this last sentence is redundant, but never mind...]
>>
>> >Ahh - I thought "the only reason I might possibly reconsider this" was
>> >referring to imposing a law in the first place.  Now that you've
>> >explained what you meant - it makes no sense at all.  If she doesn't
>> >want one, she won't get one - what does this have to do with your
>> >prohibiting them?
>>
>> She might want one, not realizing how dangerous it is.

>Or, she might want to give birth, not realizing how even more dangerous it is.
>Better outlaw that, too.

This is typical pro-abortion propaganda.  Dangerousness depends very much
upon the individual case.  And whereas ob/gynecologists schedule frequent
checkups to see just what the risks (if any) are, abortionists, or rather
their PR people, generally make blanket statistical statements like the one
you've just made, and try to make short work of the abortion so they can
get on to the next customer.

>> Like those
>> infamous "coathanger" abortions; of which, BTW, Dr. Willke claims he has
>> never heard an authenticated example of.  Can any of you networkers
>> enlighten him?

>Did you miss the recent repost of Stella's self-abortion?

I did, but after I wrote the above, I saw the mention of Whoopi Goldberg's
self-abortion.  I'll relay the info to Dr. Willke.  Thanks.

>> Like taking away the choice to go to a back alley butcher?  Would you
>> make what they do legal?  [Actually, it is legal, and happens even today.]

>It's legal?  I was under the impression that abortions had to be performed
>by a doctor.  Can you tell me where it's legal for a "back alley butcher"
>to perform an abortion?

"Doctor" and "back alley butcher" are not mutually exclusive terms.  On top
of which, I doubt that every state makes a requirement that abortions be
performed only by doctors.