From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 10:29:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.031014.15105@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.034713.4354@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec23.065254.17977@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>
>>>
>>>Can you produce any evidence that anybody is performing post-26 week
>>>terminations and *not* attempting to salvage the fetus? So far, you've
>>>completly failed to do this. 
>>
>>Okay, Mark, if a 28-week pregnant woman asked for a D&E abortion, and there 
>>were NO unusual medical conditions diagnosed, do you think, from the viewpoint
>>of medical ethics, she should be allowed to get her D&E? After that, please
>>answer the same question from your own personal moral viewpoint. If the two 
>>answers differ, will you finally admit that the pseudo-proposal to "handle
>>abortion as strictly a medical matter" is naive and unworkable, since medical
>>ethics alone can't address the vast tapestry of legal/historical/sociological/
>>economic factors that legislation can?
>>
>From the medical ethics viewpoint: No. Medical ethics require that
>ever effort be made to salvage a viable fetus, and a 28 weeker is
>connsidered to be (marginally) viable.

Is this "duty to salvage" specifically written anywhere? Or is this just 
your loose interpretation of medical ethics?

>From my personal viewpoint: No, because my personal ethics also
>require that I make every effort to salvage a viable fetus, and a 28
>weeker is considered to be (margianally) viable.

What if the law REQUIRED you to kill the viable fetus at the mother's request, 
Mark? Then what? Would you violate the law, or your own personal and medical 
principles?

(And don't even start with that "it'd never happen" crap. I tire of such 
evasions.)

>Medical ethics is certainly more capable of addressing the vast
>tapestry of legal/historical/sociological/economic factors as they
>relate to a medical choice then are a bunch of lawyers.

I disagree. Medical ethics knows nothing about economic theory. Medical
ethics is largely oblivious to evolving social awareness. Medical ethics
reflects the narrow class and professional biases of those who formulate 
it. As for the alternative, let's note first that not all legislators are
lawyers (the most common "other" profession of Michigan legislators, for
instance, is teacher, not lawyer). Secondly, let's also note that our whole
political process is geared towards giving representation and empowerment to 
those who might not otherwise have it -- the poor, the ignorant, etc. -- 
and whose interests are NOT necessarily represented adequately by physicians 
formulating their beloved canons of ethics.

Call it a distrust of doctors, call it a loathing of cosy little cliques, 
but I'd rather open up the issue to a wider forum than just the Golden 
Stethoscope Elite...

>Speaking of economics Kebbin...
>You have repeatedly argued in favor of legislation that would,
>according to you, force medical intervention to save the lifes of
>fetuses after termination of pregnancy. 

This is incorrect. I have not spoken in support of any such legislation. 
The rest of your article, which was premised on this incorrect assumption, 
has been deleted without further comment from me.

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion