From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: a little slavery is "harmless" (was Re: "Harmless Slavery")
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 17:52:42 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


rb>In article <17632@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys (Ronald Bense) writes:

rb>My mistake for not being clear, but there was more in this post than
rb>the above. The line of reasoning (at least in my mind :) was that allowing
rb>a reasonable amount of time before abortions were restricted to only
rb>health reasons or other extenuating circumstances (3-4 months) as preventing
rb>the "enslavement" argument. (I have personal trouble with advocating
rb>3rd-trimester abortions for reasons that do not fall under health of
rb>either the mother or the fetus, or extenuating circumstances such as
rb>rape and incest) Giving someone a free choice at this point, and if
rb>they choose to carry to term, is not, IMHO, enslavement of any type.

rb>My diving board analogy was that a person is free to get off the board
rb>until the last step off the end (indicative of the 3-4 month time limit
rb>for unrestricted abortions) where a choice has to be made. At this point,
rb>I find it unreasonable to assume that a woman would not be aware of
rb>a pregnancy for some time, thus this time frame should allow her enough
rb>time to make up her mind. In those rare circumstances where a woman
rb>is either not aware for whatever odd biological reasons that she is
rb>pregnant, or even plain ignorance due to lack of proper education, a
rb>case could be made for extenuating circumstances.

I read what you wrote and I was trying to think about a reply.  Then I
read one more article further and found someone responding to another
post who said essentially what I wanted to say.

rb>In article <17636@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys (Ronald Bense) writes:

rb>As for the overwhelming majority of abortions being for the sake of
rb>convience, I say so what. Who are you to judge? As has been stated before
rb>(by me) I have'nt met a woman who has had an abortion who didn't agonize
rb>over it first, and through strength of will and mind, made a difficult
rb>choice for herself. I never met a woman who just waltzed in, got rid
rb>of that fetus, then went out and got pregnant again to go through that
rb>sheer joy of abortion again. :)

So it looks like you answered your own post.  But since I can't help but
get verbose, I'll have to add a little bit of my own thoughts.

I've heard many pro-choicers say they want to see 1st and possibly
2nd tri-mester abortions not restricted.  However, they do wish to see
a restriction on 3rd tri-mester abortions.  I don't understand the
rational.  If you consider it none of your business during the first
6 months, why does it suddenly become your business later on.

I also see restrictions on 3rd tri-mester abortions being a solution
to a non-problem.  I think legislation that deals with non-problems
if always silly and often dangerous.  Try and write legislation that
will restrict these women people assume are getting abortions 7 to 9
months into their pregnancy for trivial reasons, but will not hinder
the right of the woman to get an abortion for what many would consider
legitimate reasons.  Is answering the non-problem really worth the
real risk?

rb>Ron

Dan King