From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 28 Aug 92 04:10:30 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
# A third trimester fetus can survive independently of the mother. 
#
# That means all abortions should be outright banned in the third
# trimester because no woman needs to kill a fetus that old, because
# s/he can survive independently. 

Lemme see -- if all third trimester fetuses can survive independently
of their mothers, and third trimester abortion is banned to prevent
pregnant women from willfully killing their fetuses, then...

	...how about we just `separate' 24 week and older fetuses from
their mothers, and pretend it isn't abortion?

Would that soothe your tiny aching mind?

# Unless pro-choice really means a woman has a right to demand that the
# fetus be killed simply because she wants to kill someone who can't
# fight back, there is absolutely, positively no way between here and
# three trips to hell and back, that the woman has any right to a dead
# fetus in the third trimester. 
# In short, the law should demand that the procedure result in a live
# fetus and the use of an incubator, with no exceptions. 

Some off-the-cuff rhetorical questions:

What if the mother is financially incapable of coming up with the
megabucks to save the life of her 12 week premature newborn?

What if said child is severely disabled and requires highly expensive
medical care throughout his/her life to stay alive and the mother
can't afford it?

Do you believe that a sufficiently small minority of 24 week old fetus
cases meeting these conditions would arise so that charity or welfare
spending could easily cover it?

Is there a crisis of third trimester abortions where viable fetuses
are killed for reasons other than medical necessity?

In short, is there a need for such a law?

----

# There is no reason not to enforce this law quite vigorously. 

There are plenty of reasons -- prime among them being that it's an
unnecessary law that does not serve the public welfare.

# Not even for deformities. No law presently allows killing someone
# because of deformities. 

Of course not.  The law presently permits fetuses with deformities to
be killed before they become persons.

So let me introduce you to the political realities of the law you're
proposing.  The result would be that some unspecified number of women
would be forced to bear children whom they don't want, an unspecified
proportion of which would be children that would require intensive
medical care to stand a fraction of a chance to live to celebrate a
birthday, and, of that set, an unspecified proportion would require
intensive medical care throughout their lives. 

The status quo permits women to kill such fetuses early, before they
become newborn infants.  Would you demand that such a law do anything
to recompense women burdened with unwanted children resulting from
your law to pay the costs of medical care made necessary as a result
of the change in the status quo?

The political reality in this country is that the people who would
support such a law, and support its `vigorous' enforcement, are the
people whom it is easy to expect would have no patience for laws that
redirect income by government coercion.

Meaning: a woman, pregnant with a severely deformed 24 week old fetus,
would no longer have the option to abort the fetus, but would, under
your law, be forced, not just to give birth, but to make every
sacrifice possible to ensure the survival of the child, with only the
help of charity, and a slim chance of success.

How many women would have to be forced into giving birth to a babies
with only a housefly's lifespan, and forced to liquidate every last
personal asset to pay for the medical care that ultimately leaves them
penniless and childless, before you'd start complaining about the
injustice of it all?  Or, do you see no injustice? -- rather, is that
the kind of justice you expect for women cruel enough to turn a man's
seed into a foul creation?

# Any questions, folks? Didn't think so.  

You thought wrong.  All the other questions were rhetorical.  Here's a
real live question, just for you:

Your law will infringe a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, it
will cost perhaps billions of dollars every year, and what worthwhile
end will it actually accomplish?


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"When people reached the last drop of their drinks, the face of Larry
Storch would seem to look out at them from the bottom, belch
contentedly and say, ``Now I am truly what I always was.  Pass the
corn nuts.''"
						     -- Larne Pekowsky
Newsgroups: talk.abortion