From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 06:31:51 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <2mrzp6c@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>Ah, I see it now. The big lie about me being an anti-choicer is just an
>excuse to dodge my probing inquiries. An "out" for the mentally lazy.

Which of your inquiries have I "dodged", Darcy?

>>The answer is that I believe a woman has the right to
>>end her pregnancy at any time, for any reason.  

>What if she's a malicious psychopath who only conceived the child in the 
>first place so she could have it tortured and killed moments before birth, and 
>she could gloat over the videotape of the whole thing for years afterwards?

Then this goes quite a bit beyond simply "ending a pregnancy", doesn't
it?  If that's the _reason_ she wants to end her pregnancy, fine.  I
haven't, to my knowledge, taken a position on whether it should be
legal to torture fetuses.

>I'm not saying this has ever happened, or ever WILL happen, mind you, but 
>I'm testing the limits of your "for any reason" (over?)generalization...

Sure Darcy, she can end her pregnancy for that reason.

>>Since the only
>>reasonable abortion methods available in the third trimester are
>>induced labor and C-section, I have absolutely no problem with a
>>woman ending her pregnancy a month early.  

>What a euphemistic way to put it -- "ending the pregnancy early" -- given 
>that a viable organism is allowed to live when the pregnancy ends "on time",
>yet killed when it ends "early". Seems there's a little more to this than
>just simple timing, huh?

Oh please.  It was NOT a euphemism, as I made clear in the remainder
of my post.  What I meant by "ending the pregnancy early" is exactly
what I said.  I do not feel the pregnant woman has a right to demand
that the fetus be born dead.  Neither C-section nor induced labor
kill the fetus, in and of themselves.  

>>If what you wax so
>>hysterical about is a higher fetal death rate from these procedures
>>than from full-term labor, then you are prefectly free to try and
>>convince me that you have an excellent reason for overriding the
>>medical judgement of doctors and legislating that some certain
>>technique MUST, IN ALL CASES be used.  

>You are parodying my supposed position, without even bothering to hear what
>it is first, Cathi. Here it is again: I DO *NOT* SUPPORT ANY RESTRICTIVE
>ABORTION LEGISLATION!!! Is that starting to sink in yet?

Gosh Darcy, I thought you said this was all hypothetical.

>>>The sentence did NOT imply that restrictive abortion legislation was 
>>>"overdue" HERE AND NOW -- only that they would be "overdue" within the 
>>>hypothetical I presented.
>>
>>And so I reiterate - I have no use for "feelgood" legislation.

>Define "'feelgood' legislation", please. 

Legislation that sounds really neat, but addresses a problem that
has not been shown to exist.  I think it's a reallyreallyreally Bad
Idea to make laws about things that don't happen.

Example: We all agree people shouldn't inject peanut butter into
their veins.  We outlaw it, congratulating ourselves for preventing
all those poor crazy people from injecting peanut butter into their
veins.  Five years later, we discover that peanut oil injections
fight breast cancer.  But wait!......

What the hell is the point of passing this sort of law?

>Does it cover ALL preventitive
>legislation? Do you think it is sane policy to wait until a social problem
>is out of control before even _starting_ to address it with legislation?

You continue to make the assumption that the problem _exists_.  I do
not, nor have I seen any reason _to_, make that assumption.

>Analogy: do you wait until your engineering problems are out of control 
>before writing a spec?

No Darcy, I wait until I see that a problem exists.  

>>>Here is the same central question again, in a more generic, and hopefully 
>>>less vulnerable format:
>>
>>>	How many viable lives would have to be terminated without good cause
>>>	before you'd permit preventitive legislation restricting late-term 
>>>	abortions?
>>
>>Darcy, now you're on another subject entirely.  

>Nope, not at all. In my previous post, I asked:

>	You don't think there is any room for preventitive laws, Cathi? You're
>	willing for the blood of unnecessary late-term abortions to stain your
>	hands BEFORE you would allow (overdue) restrictive legislation to be 
>	passed? Isn't this the same "retroactive social planning" that has 
>	made such a mess of our government already?

>Other than different phrasing, the questions are the same. But your evasion is
>starting to waver a bit...

Bullshit.  I am addressing early termination of pregnancy.  You're
talking about killing fetuses.  Don't bother dragging out Black's.

>>My position is that
>>a woman has the right to end her pregnancy at any time, for any
>>reason.  I don't think you are in a particularly good position
>>to mandate that the pregnancy must be ended in a certain WAY
>>to save these hypothetical "viable lives", 

>The viability of those lives is NOT hypothetical, Cathi, they are 
>documented scientific facts.

More bullshit, Darcy.  These "documented scientific facts" deal in
viability _percentages_.  Hint: The viability percentage for full-term
births is NOT 100%.  Medicine does not and cannot guarantee the
survival of any individual fetus, as there are conditions that only
manifest themselves after detachment/birth.  Digestive difficulties,
for one thing.

>>...but you're certainly
>>free to try and get YOUR medical judgement written into law.

>First, the medical judgments are not the focus of the controversy here -- it's 
>the social, political and/or legal judgments that are. Medicine can only 
>answer questions like "what are the risks to the mother?" and "what are the 
>risks to the fetus?". But when and whether the second question is considered 
>IMPORTANT or not cannot be answered by medicine alone.

Let me spell it out for you.  If you wish to make a law that says 
"Given the choice between two (or more) termination procedures that are of
equal health risk and equal cost to the patient, the doctor MUST
use the procedure which is more likely to result in a live birth.",
I wouldn't raise a peep of protest.  You are free to try and protect
the fetus' life if you can do so without interfering with the rights
of the woman.

>Second, for hopefully the last time: I DO *NOT* SUPPORT ANY RESTRICTIVE
>ABORTION LEGISLATION!!!! So please stop stating or implying that this is
>my view. You are dead wrong.

Gosh Darcy, I thought this was all hypothetical.

>								- Kevin

                         -rocker