From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible (was Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:51:11 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, psl@nrl.navy.mil writes:
>In article <25877@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
>writes:
>>In talk.abortion, psl@nrl.navy.mil writes:

>That was my point exactly.  For me to use "baby" is loaded since it presupposes
>that the fetus at that stage has the same value as a born individual.  I have
>no objection to using "fetus" as long as you understand that for me it has the
>same value as a born fetus, as it were.

This is a moral stance, and personal opinion. Let's keep it that way,
shall we? Or maybe you'd like to subscribe to the type laws that women
must always wear robes that hide their bodies, and veils to hide their
faces, never speak to a man, and always walk a step or two behind her
husband? These are also the beliefs and opinions of no small minority
of people in the world. Guess what? I don't subscribe to that viewpoint
either, and oppose laws based on those opinions and morals.

>After listening to many pro-abortion rights folks, this scenario is not
>acceptable to many of them.  If a woman wants an abortion she has the right to
>achieve everything that it implies, in particular the death of the developing
>fetus, at any stage. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I'm not sure, maybe I forgot to insert it, or maybe you deleted it,
but generally this statement comes along with the following, that third
tris are done for medical purposes only (that I know of) and none are
done for the purpose of just getting rid of a pregnancy. So the above
is really meaningless, since their are none done except for the exceptions.
Before this time, the fetus can't live on its own, so the case is moot.

>Don't you see the irony of the situation?  In one case this fetus on life
>support is a premature baby and in the other its a failed abortion - just based

Or the willingness of the family to support the incredible costs of
caring for this premature baby. (They can refuse treatment, you know.)

>of the mother.  I know many will say,"Right on!", but that scares me.

I don't see how it matters one way or another. It really doesn't qualify
as a person at that stage, so why should you have any more guilt over
that than killing anything else? (This for the moment ignores that many
women do have many thoughts over whether they should or should not get
an abortion. I know it is not an easy decision to make, no matter what
is chosen. I don't wish to belittle this choice in this discussion.)

>>How about making a law against someone "throwing" a heavy tool or the
>>like down to earth from orbit? It could kill someone, but there is no
>>law against it. It also is not very likely to happen.

>(This is not as far fetched as you think.  Remember the disintigrating Soviet
>satellite that fell to earth several years back?  Do you think the lawyers
>would pause one millisecond in bringing a lawsuit against NASA if a shuttle
>slammed into someone's house?)

Suing someone for something that they caused is a whole lot different
than making a law against it. That you fail to see the difference scares
me.

>But this really is beside the point.  There already are laws forbidding killing
>human beings.  Anti-abortion rights people feel there should be no special
>exceptions applied for those who are unborn.  You felt the exception was fine
>if it was the mother's wish. I don't want anyone to have that discretion.

Actually, I'm not sure. Is that laws against killing people, persons,
human beings in the traditional sense, or human beings in the pro-life
sense? Except for the latter, none of these laws would be applicable
to a z/e/f without changing the core definition of what was intended
as the protected party.

I'll tell you what. The day that you find me an acceptable, perfect
contraceptive is the day that you can argue for that discretion thing.
Until then, it is really none of your business. These laws will never
really apply to you, whereas I believe every other law can apply to
you at sometime.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.