From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 19:14:07 GMT


In article <1992Nov21.075922.9133@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
 
>Assume that for the moment a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy at
>any time is a given, wouldn't it be useful to provide some protection
>for the fetus?  So that during the process of terminating a pregnancy
>it isn't needlessly killed. 
 
I can not imagine any legislation that would make this possible.  As
I've said before, it is very possible I am wrong here and there is 
legislation that would some how resolve this conflict giving both
sides equal consideration.  However, until I see such legislation
spelled out that meets the requirement of maintaining a woman's right
to terminate her pregnancy, I will consider the proposal of such
both silly and dangerous. 

>Presently an abortion may kill a fetus anytime without any consideration 
>for the life of the fetus.  While I will concede that this may not be 
>a significant problem, given the low number of late-term abortions o
>presently performed, I propose that such a restriction may be useful 
>more than it may be harmful.  In particular, it would establish a 
>clear value to the life of the fetus, and it could provide some measure 
>of peace in the debate. 
 
I see such legislation as being extremely harmful.  Lets take simple 
legislation such as Elizabeth's proposal that a fetus can only be
killed during the third tri-mester for health reasons if two doctors
agree that the health reasons warrant killing the fetus.  This seems 
innocent enough.  But guess what is going to happen with such 
legislation in the real world.  Every single third tri-mester and
even many second tri-mester abortions are going to be challenged
in court by groups such as Operation Rescue or the National Right 
to Life Committee.  The life or health to the woman is not as
important to them as it is to you and me.  And there is not some 
universal agreement in the medical community of what constitutes 
health risks for the woman.  What makes anyone think this 
agreement can be reached in the legislative arena?  If two 
doctors agree that the fetus must be killed because if it isn't
there is say about a 20% chance the woman will die, what makes
you think a judge will agree with that assessment or will agree
that that is sufficient risk?  With such legislation, doctors
worried about answering in court, are going to very leery of 
ever performing late term abortions if the woman's health is
at risk.  Supply will go down, demand will not decrease, only 
women that can afford to make it worth the doctors risk will 
have the ability to get such procedures performed.  
Disadvantaged women will end up suffering and dying.  
 
I see a lot of harm in such legislation and I have not seen 
any problem that warrants these type of risks.  I also do not
see a problem with us needing to legislate a value to the life
of the fetus.  Some people put a large value on a fetus's 
life, others don't put as high a value.  I don't think the 
government stepping in and forcing some valuation as a good 
thing.  And I see no reason why now that legislative victory
is close that we must compromise with the fetus fanatics.  
  
>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
>ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
 
Dan King