From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Choice and post-viability abortions
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:11:05 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


sm>In article <29259@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

sm>In article <92241.214449ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
sm>ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes a long and fairly
sm>hostile response to some ideas I posted for discussion.  I clearly
sm>stated in the original post that I personally do not support
sm>post-viability restrictions on the right to choose abortion.  Yet Ms.
sm>Birmingham deletes the statement of this opinion and directs hostile
sm>questions about potential reasoning for supporting these restrictions
sm>to me.  I wonder if her deletion of my opinion is an indication that
sm>these matters should not even be discussed in her opinion.  I oppose
sm>such censorship.  In addition, she misrepresents my representation of
sm>the point-of-view that supports such restrictions, suggesting for
sm>example, that opposing post viability abortions is the same as wanting
sm>to punish women for sex.  I believe this is incorrect, and that one
sm>basis for post-viability restrictions, which I do not support, could
sm>be the reasoning, clearly stated in my original post, that the women
sm>has entered into an implied contract by allowing the pregancy to
sm>continue.  I think she may have a reading comprehension problem if she
sm>thinks that a statement that continuing a pregnancy creates an
sm>obligation is the same as a statement that consenting to sex creates
sm>an obligation to carry to term.  They are not the same.  Her hostility
sm>seems to suggest that these issues should not even be discuussed; is
sm>there some reason for this?

I had planned to respond to your article, however, Linda beat me to it
and said many of the things I had planned to say so I never bothered.  
I believe we both understood that these were not your arguments but you 
were only placing opinion out there for discussion.  Linda responded to
your points and not to you personally. This net goes out to many different
people.  Your arguments were put forth as arguments for restricting 
third tri-mester abortions.  It is possible people considered the 
arguments you put forward, even though you personally don't support
those very same arguments.  Linda was responding to the arguments you
put forth, not to what you may or may not support.

I agree with Linda that your argument (Regardless if it is your personal
view or not) that a woman by inaction during a pregnancy has given the
fetus implied consent to inhabit her body, has many things in common with
pro-lifers who believe that the act of coitus sex is also implied consent
to allow the fetus to inhabit her body.  I understand the argument, because
it was one I used to use when arguing in favor of third tri-mester 
abortions.  I was eventually convinced of the error of the argument.

I saw nothing were Linda claimed these issues should not be discussed.  As
a matter of fact, it appeared she was discussing these issues.  She was not 
agreeing with your argument, but she was not some how forbidding your 
argument.  Your statement that the two different forms of consent can
not be compared, no ifs, ands or buts seems to be an attempt to end the
discussion.

sm>SJM
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion