From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:24:48 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

Peter Nyikos writes:
>Brian Kendig writes:
>>Martin Guerrero writes:
>>>The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right we have.  Without
>>>a right to life, we cannot claim any other rights (possibly because we'd
>>>be dead?)
>
>>There are two weaknesses to your argument.
>
>>One is that your 'right' to life can be waived by other people.
>
>No weakness there.  I think even Martin would make a threat-to-the-life-
>of-the-mother exception, and I would make a lot more exceptions.

That wasn't what I was talking about.  As I pointed out in the part of
my reply that you deleted, there are cases besides abortion in which
it is legal to kill someone who is not directly threatening anyone's
life.  It's useless to try to say that our right to life is
inalienable, because obviously it's not.

What other exceptions would you make?

>>The other is that you're completely neglecting to consider the woman
>>involved. 		  ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Come off it, Brian!  are you blind, or are you such a toady of Adrienne
>that you cannot bear to disagree with her?

Beg pardon?  I don't know what Adrienne says about the rights and
responsibilities of a pregnant woman, but why does that matter here?
I said that Martin completely neglected to consider the woman because
he did -- through his entire post, there was no mention given of the
women's concerns.

>> I've posted a list of some situations in which I feel a
>>woman would have a very good reason not to have a child she doesn't
>>want (she was raped, or she needs to take medication that could
>>severely damage the fetus, or she would be required to quit her job
>>and go onto welfare, and so on).
>
>I can't speak for Martin, but it is precisely for such reasons that
>I would keep abortion legal for the first 5 weeks.  

That makes sense, but I question its usefulness because (a) many women
don't know they're pregnant until after that point and (b) how will
you be able to tell when a fetus is five weeks old?

>Can you give an instance where a woman NEEDS, in the sense of severe
>physical impairment resulting from ANY other remedy, to take a medi-
>cation that would SEVERELY damage the fetus ... ?

I'm not knowledgeable enough about medicine to provide specific
examples, but I do know that I've seen an awful lot of prescription
drugs marked "Not for use by pregnant women."  How can you say that no
woman will ever have a need for one of these drugs while she's
pregnant, or if she does, that she will always be able to find a
non-dangerous substitute?

>>  If you pass legislation that
>>will only allow abortions in some cases but not others, then women
>>will struggle to slip through the loophole in that law, and women with
>>a legitimate reason for needing an abortion will be hindered by it.
>
>The hindering will not be a major problem if the reason really is
>legitimate.  As to loopholes, sure, some will slip through, but there
>would still be a major reduction in the number of abortions if the
>loopholes are at all intelligently designed.

I don't share your optimistic support of our legal system.  ;-)

Even legislation to handle murder cases doesn't work too much of the
time; murderers on parole walk the streets, and innocent people go to
prison on flimsy evidence (there was a notable case very recently,
where a man who continually asserted his innocence, and for whom
plenty of supporting evidence backed him up, was executed).  If
abortion is outlawed, then only outlaws will have abortions, I feel,
and it will just put a lot of strain on our already-bloated legal
system and a lot of hassle on the people who need abortions.

>Or don't you give a 
>damn about reducing the number of abortions, Brian?

I care very much about reducing the number of abortions, and I don't
appreciate your suggestion that I don't.  I want to get rid of
abortions by getting rid of unwanted pregnancies, not by compounding
the problem by forcing unwilling mothers to give birth.

We're both working for the same goal, Peter: a day when all abortions
will finally be unnecessary.  If you'd just drop your legal agenda,
maybe we can work on the same side.

>>How do you propose to solve this problem?  More to the point, why is
>>it up to _you_ to 'solve' it?
>
>We're all in on this together.  Martin is just pitching in and doing
>his share, and so far what he has written makes a lot more sense than
>what you have written.

Peter, I see a great deal of hostility in what you've written, and I
refuse to take it personally.  I agree that some of what Martin's said
makes sense; I just happen to not agree with him.  If you'd try to
understand where I'm coming from and help point out fundamental flaws
in my argument, I'd appreciate that; if you can convince me by
persuasion that your opinion is better than mine, then I'll agree with
what you say.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion