From: kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Good News from a Premie!
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:11:13 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Sep15.154725.25747@u.washington.edu> cbrand@cac.washington.edu (Carol Brand) writes:
>original text
>_____________________________________________________________________________
>In article <19350rINN4jb@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep14.211646.8121@u.washington.edu> cbrand@cac.washington.edu (Carol Brand) writes:
>>>As more and more premies are saved, I think we will all have to do some
>>>serious thinking about acceptable cutoffs for abortions.  In the state of
>>>Washington, a woman can have an abortion through the 24th week.  It seems
>>>rather hypocritical to have a doctor in one room fighting to save a life
>>>while in another a doctor is ending one.
>____________________________________________________________________________
>>why?
>>
>>I don't see anything particularly hypocritical about it.  Perhaps you can
>>tell us why you do?
>>
>>Adrienne Regard
>
>Hummmm....
>
>How do I explain this, it's rather like having to explain why life has any
>value at all.  If a babies at 21 weeks are surviving, then it seems by
>definition that they are persons, with all of the inalienable rights that
>are guaranteed by our US constitution.  To purposefully take their lives
>is wrong, just as it is wrong to take the life of a person at 2 years, 30
>years, or 80.  I think it is hypocritical for people to decide that
>someone is a person in one case, but not another.

IMO, late-term elective abortions do not necessarily have to entail the
death of the fetus. If a fetus can be *removed* (thus terminating the
pregnancy) in such a way as to preserve its life, and cause no extra burden
to the mother, then I think it should be done this way.  If 21-week preemies
are surviving, perhaps steps should be taken (how?  I know nothing about
the medical aspect of this) to preserve any 21-week aborted fetuses, as long
as they don't require "heroic" measures that put extra burdens on the woman
(such as having the abortion in a hospital with a state-of-the-art neonatal
unit).  However, since only 3 doctors in the U.S. perform late-term abortions,
EVEN for reasons involving the health of the mother, I don't see that much
aborting of fetuses that might survive if prematurely born at that moment
goes on.

(It should be noted that the pro-choice side doesn't entirely agree on this
point:
--------------------
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: On removing fetuses (Re: Observations)
In talk.abortion, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>If it [fetus] can
>be removed in such a way that keeps it alive, and releases the woman from
>*all* responsibility, then fine.

Gordon, This is something I have to disagree with as a blanket statement.
I realize that your clause "releases the woman from *all* responsibility"
makes this a virtual impossibility, but no one should be forced to generate
progeny, and that was what the Courts decided also, In the case I posted
a while back which had a primary argument that embryos were not life,
in the human sense. I would further extend this clause as:

    If a fetus can be removed alive, and the woman wishes that steps
    be taken to save it, whether she would be held responsible or
    not per her wishes, then those steps should be enacted. Otherwise,
    no steps would be taken to save the life of the fetus.
--------------------

>You once asked me if I had an analogy for why abortion is wrong.  I
>thought about it a lot, so here goes.  Do you think that it is ok to
>remove a person from a life support system? (Many people say yes!).  Now,
>however, do you think that it is ok to remove a person from a life support
>system if you know that in 9 months they will be fully living on their own
>again?
>
>Your thoughts?

It depends.  Keith Cochran mentioned this week that he has a living will
that would take him off of life support after 7 days.  I don't know what
that involves with respect to the prospect that he would make a full recovery
in your analogy. If someone has no living will stating his/her wishes, I
wouldn't take him/her off of life support if the possibility of full recovery
was there.

However, I don't see this as similar to abortion. A life-support machine
does not require the bodily resources of another person to operate. If someone
else had to be hooked up to this machine, and help provide the life-support
for 9 months, I would argue that this person could be detached from it at any
time if he/she no longer wished to provide support for it. I would not require
anyone to provide 9 months worth of bodily support for anyone else.

>-Carol

-Kristy
-- 
 +==========================+================================================+
 |Kristy Patterson          | Nothing really rocks, and nothing really rolls,|
 |kristyp@mac.dartmouth.edu | & nothing's ever worth the cost.      -Meatloaf|
 +==========================+=================================Bat Out of Hell+
Newsgroups: talk.abortion