From: rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:29:59 GMT
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation

In article <1992Sep29.154712.23310@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.195929.16359@spectrum.xerox.com>, rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
>

>> Abortion is legal (in NY state) throughout an entire pregnancy!  
>
>Is this true?  NY-ers?  I'm not up on the legalities in all states, but
>this seems odd.
>
Yes, This IS true.  Read Roe V. Wade.  That was the ruling, over the entire pregnancy!  NYS DOES allow
abortions throughout the entire nine months, however, it would be very difficult to find a doctor to perform one because of the risks involved.


>> That means the day before birth, a baby can be legally killed.  
>
>Wouldn't they just do a cessarian (sp?) and remove a healthy baby?
>Could you please give specific information (that can be checked) that
>such a case has happened?  I think not.

Remember, we are atlking about how the current law reads, and thus it would be the mother's choice!  Yes, they would have to probobly do a c-section, and smother or otherwise kill the baby.  This goes with the above comment however.  In such a case one would be killing a baby which is technicall outside the
mother's body.  That leads to all sorts of legal questions, and again, that makes it difficult to find a
doctor who would perform an abortion this late in the pregnancy.  But keep in mind that it would still be legal, according to the current law.

>
>> The day after birth, someone would be jailed for the same offense!  
>
>> One might argue that because the baby can't live on it's own, that it is not a 
>> [lack of line wrap, lost a key word here]
>> yet.  BULL!  A one year old baby can't live on it's own!  
>> Where do we draw the line?     
>
>BULL, yourself.  A baby (born) can be taken care of by any number of
>people.  A z/e/f (unborn) can be taken care of ONLY by the woman in
>whose womb it is implanted.  THAT is the line we draw.

Very incorrect here!  My youngest was born over 6 weeks premature.  She could not have lived if not cared for in the neonatal intensive care unit.  You are drawing the line at 'inside/outside'  I equate it with AGE!  A z/e/f as you call them, removed from it's mother at the same age as my daughter was, would have
the same chance of living as she did, if properly cared for.  There were 2nd trimester babies in that NCU at the hospital.  I have to use age as a measuring stick, rather than whether or not the baby is born.  

[stufff]
>>True! I'm pro-choice. Yes, I agree that a woman should have a choice, 
>> and she DOES!  She can choose to get pregnant, or not to.  
>> Her so-called right to choice, should however, disappear as soon 
>> as it involves another human being.
>
>1) What if she actively tries NOT to get pregnant, and still does AGAINST
>   her choice (say, rape or contraceptive failure)?  THAT is the question
>   at issue here, your stupid generalizations don't cover the real issues.

Say you wanted to put a revolver to your head, it only had one out of six bullets in it, how many times would YOU pull the trigger?  Now take the same gun, remove ALL the bullets, and ask the same question.
The point here is that we know of ONLY ONE method of birth control which IS 100% effective!  That's it, only ONE!  (Although, one might want to include histerectomy as a second one ...)  Note that this is a FACT (as you requested)!  All other methods account for 98% of all abortions.  Rape/incest is less than 1%, and 'other' accounts for the remaining 1%.


rlg
-- 
Ron Goers @ Xerox Corporation     Email: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com

"Time flies like an arrow ...
 fruit flies like a banana"                                           
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40811 talk.politics.misc:49767 alt.rush-limbaugh:6627