From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:42:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.063333.23660@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1993Jan24.233255.26799@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan06.180144.30378@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>[Note that I've dropped alt.flame, since I'm only addressing the facts.]
>>>
>>>In <1993Jan6.064302.25323@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan4.020223.1283@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Dec26.232007.13372@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>>In article <1992Dec25.195604.13432@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>>>>>This is turning into your "it's not legal in every state to use lethal force
>>>>>>>to stop a rape" thing, isn't it?  Why don't you stop waffling, and just
>>>>>>>give us a situation (hypothetical or not) where ending a pregnancy is more
>>>>>>>dangerous to the woman than continuing it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A 28-week pregnant woman, without any discernible medical complications,
>>>>>>announces her wish to end her pregnancy by having her fetus sucked out through
>>>>>>her spine, heart and cerebellum. Should she be allowed to abort in this
>>>>>>manner?
>>>>>
>>>>>Kindly provide the name of any medical doctor qualified to perform abortions
>>>>>who would perform an abortion in this manner under any circumstance, and I'll
>>>>>get back to you...
>>>>
>>>>You are adding stipulations that weren't contained in the original question,
>>>>Keith.
>>>
>>>Well, you did it first, Kevin.  Keith asked you to give a situation where
>>>ending a pregnancy is more dangerous to the woman than continuing it.  You
>>>did not - you gave a situation where ending the pregnancy *in the manner
>>>you specified* is more dangerous, but gave no reason to believe that
>>>simply ending the pregnancy in the normal manner would be more dangerous.
>>
>>The "normal manner" stipulation did not exist in the original question,
>>Larry. It is a recent innovation. I have met my part of this challenge.
>
>"In the manner specified by a suicidal patient" wasn't in the original
>question either.  

No, but neither was it precluded. I met the terms of the challenge AS WRITTEN.
It's not my fault that the challenge was so vague as to leave a huge loophole.

>The question was:
>   Why don't you stop waffling, and just give us a situation
>   (hypothetical or not) where ending a pregnancy is more
>   dangerous to the woman than continuing it?
>
>You've given no reason to believe that ending the pregnancy in the situation
>you specified would be more dangerous than continuing.  

Depends on the MANNER of termination, doesn't it? That's the whole point.

>Certainly ending it
>*in the manner* you specified would be more dangerous, but that was not part
>of the question.  It seems you've failed to meet the challenge.

I have met the challenge as written. If someone wants to re-issue another
challenge that lacks that loophole, they are certainly welcome to do so.

								- Kevin

"The mother's egg was there, in it's natural habitat.  It is only the
 introduction of the sperm that creates a zygote.  Thus, we should load up all
 this responsibility for tresspass upon the male."
				Adrienne Regard, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
				13 Jan 1993 11:56:47 -0800
				<1j1s5vINNdfb@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc