From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:32:48 GMT

In article <120n24j.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) wrote (in article <1992Sep25.114325.7194@hemlock.cray.com>):
>>In article <f39n2lj.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>>(Keep in mind, too, that I wouldn't even consider allowing
>>>third-trimester abortions unless it were a question of either the
>>>fetus's life or the mother's life.  I feel that killing a person is
>>>murder otherwise, but there does exist that period of time before the
>>>unborn human becomes a person...)
>>>
>>You have put forth a great deal of argument about abortion,
>>most of which focuses entirely on the characteristics of the
>>fetus.  Your position on late term abortion seems very restrictive.
>>Would you mind answering some questions about it?
>
>I'm not hard set in my position -- all the recent discussion on
>"personhood at birth" is making me re-think my opinion.  But since
>I haven't changed my mind yet, I'll do my best to explain myself.
>
>>1. What sort of legal penalties would you propose for a woman
>>   who obtained an abortion in the third trimester if it was
>>   determined that her life was not in danger?  For the doctor?
>
>My reasoning is based on the fact that a third-trimester fetus is,
>physically and biologically, very similar to a born baby.  Therefore I
>would call non-essential third-trimester abortions 'infanticide', with
>whatever legal actions that apply.  I don't know what would apply to
>the doctor in this case.  "Aiding and abetting"?
>
If you really wanted to treat third-tri abortion the same as
infanticide, you would need to charge both woman and doctor
with murder.  Seems like a bad idea to me.  Both would do
prison time.  How would you handle this in the courts?  If
the fetus were to enjoy the legal status of personhood, the
woman would have to demonstrate self-defense.  What would the
doctor's defense be?  

Third-trimester abortion is not widely practiced in this
country.  Most of the cases in which it does occur involves
a personal tragedy.  Would you be willing to put a lot of 
suffering people through the misery of a court defense 
without any evidence that third-trimester abortion is now
being abused?

>I really don't feel I'm restricting a woman's rights here, because
>after all, she's had almost half a year to get an abortion already.  A
>fetus this late in development most certainly can feel pain, so an
>abortion would arguably be cruel to it.  And, besides, there have been
>preemies born after seven months who have survived; it just doesn't
>seem right to me for some reason to give a preemie different moral and
>legal consideration than a fetus conceived the same length of time ago.

I do see a difference.  Quiet, everyone, and let's see
if Brian can think of it.
>
>>2. Would there be any other exceptions besides imminent death?
>>   (Say, gross fetal deformity, prospect of permanent health
>>   damage for the woman?)
>
>Hmm.  Okay, these sound like good reasons to allow third-trimester
>abortions -- medical concerns.  But wouldn't these have been at least
>anticipated before the third trimester?  Hmmmm.
>
Not always.  Some complications only show up late in pregnancy,
such as toxemia or gestational diabetes.  Precursors of these
conditions will usually be detected with excellent prenatal
care.  We don't have adequate care for all the pregnant women
in this country yet, though.

>>3. How likely would death have to be before you would permit the 
>>   woman to obtain an abortion?
>
>Okay, in continuing my answer to the last question: I suppose
>third-trimester abortions are permissible when there's some sort of
>medical concern.  This would set the limit quite a ways before "risk
>of death".
>
Now you have a consistency problem if you wish to give legal 
personhood to a fetus while it still resides within the mother.
In the Roe vs Wade opinion, the Supreme Court made it clear
that fetal personhood would preclude abortion for any reason,
even the life of the mother.

>>>My justice is 'fair' when you consider that it's a debate between a
>>>living, breathing, feeling, thinking, independent woman, and an
>>>unbreathing, unfeeling, unthinking fetus who's _completely_ dependant
>>>on using the mother's resources in order to sustain its rights.
>>
>>Why does this change in the third trimester?  Late-term fetuses
>>have never enjoyed full personhood under the law.  Would you favor
>>granting legal personhood to a third-tri fetus?
>
>I'd favor giving late-term fetuses the same legal consideration that
>infants have, I think.  The distinction I make between third-trimester
>fetuses and ones before the third trimester is that a late-term fetus
>is capable of feeling and thinking, and possibly even breathing and
>being independent.  (I mean that I think that if you were to induce a
>birth even as long as a week before it would normally have occurred,
>the baby would most likely be fine.  Heck, that's what Marilyn Quayle did!)
>
This legal consideration can only be given to fetuses if you are
willing to sacrifice some women's lives. 
Do you think that late term abortions are happening now in this 
country for trivial reasons?  Note that Canada has no laws restricting
abortion at any time during pregnancy, and the incidence of late
term abortion does not appear to be increasing there.

muriel
standard disclaimer