From: psl@nrl.navy.mil
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible (was Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:00:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NRL

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

>>3)  Unfortunely words like "fetus" or "unborn child" are so loaded that to
use
>>them can short circuit any argument one is trying to make.  To me, saying,
>>"have that fetus", makes it: "woman" vs. "thing"- thats an easy choice to
>>make.
>>The real issue to me is "woman" vs "baby" - that's why its not so easy.
>
>Fetus is not loaded, it is a clinically and traditionally correct term
>used to describe a specific stage in the development cycle of a human
>being. Calling a fetus baby in the argument at hand is an emotionally
>loaded usage. 

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. 

>And it is just a woman issue to me. If she wants it out,
>get it out. If it can survive, alone or with minor help (no heart-lung
>machines, etc) then great, unless the purpose was to abort it due to
>problems with the fetus. 

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.


>If this is not possible, why should measures be taken to remove it alive?

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
upon the intention of the mother.  So the concept of "child" is instilled in
this fetus, not by any biological or physical characteristic, but by the will
of the mother.  I know many will say,"Right on!", but that scares me.


>>I realize that these late term abortions are rare.  But that seems such a red
>>herring to me.  I've read in some recent postings that if certain crimes
rarely
>>occur then its a waist of time to pass laws against them. The intrinsic
>>"badness" or "goodness" of an act doesn't seem tied in with its frequency.
>
>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?)

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.

Paul