NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53013

Text File | 1992-12-25 | 6.5 KB | 124 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Who, me???
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 04:09:11 GMT
Lines: 113

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>}In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>}>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>}>
>}>}Ah, but encountering a burglar in one's house in the middle of the night
>}>}is really NOT analogous to being pregnant.
>}>
>}>True, but you probably should have stopped there.  I suspect you attempted
>}>to explain why.
>}>
>}>
>}>}                                                                  When dealing
>}>}with pregnancy, that's a whole different situation. The growing fetus can be
>}>}monitored, tested. The medical risks are known and be accurately measured in
>}>}any given case. Where there is a serious known risk, the woman can be
>}>}hospitalized so that, in case of sudden crisis, professional medical help
>}>}can be summoned within seconds.
>}>
>}>I see your conception of medicine is as fantastic as your legal knowledge.
>}>
>}>ps  Kevin, I work where they make doctors.  I work with "almost doctors,"
>}>full-fleged doctors and medical equipment every day.  The picture is hardly
>}>as you present, although many people would like it to be that way.
>}
>}So much for contentless hand-waving.
>
>Well, Kevin, I don't know what you use, but I have to type on my terminal
>to get ASCII characters.  Contentless typing, perhaps.  They again,
>maybe you just wave your hands, and your posts appear.  There has
>to be some explanation.

Ya know, just about every time I _really_ get under your skin, you lead off
your article with some alleged "joke" wherein you take a common figure of
speech (in this case, "hand-waving") and pretend to take it absolutely
literally. This same pattern has repeated itself quite a few times now.
You're in a rut, Galen. (Oops! Now I've given you an opening to babble about
how your terminal chair is on a level floor, not in a rut. Ha-yuck, ha-yuck.)

>}If you think my description is
>}"fantastic", then I'd appreciate an explanation WHY.
>
>Well, yes, I do think your description is fantastic and since you asked,
>here's why:
>
>You assert that the medical risks of pregnancy are known.  They are not.
>They can be described in some circumstances, and can be assigned
>a probability of occurance in some cases, but hardly in all.  Even in
>the best of circumstances, some risks are totally and completely unknown
>and undiscovered.
>
>You assert that accurate measurement is possible in any given case.  This
>is not at all possible even in the best of cases.  There exist
>deviations from "accurate" in the equipment and in the people running
>it.  The inaccuracy may be reduced to tollerable levels in some cases,
>but accurate measurement is hardly possible in any given case.
>
>You assert that hospitalization permits summoning of professional
>medical types in seconds.  This is also untrue.  It does increase
>the chances of rapidly summoning of help to be sure, but responding
>in a matter of seconds is a goal, not a standard in many hospitals.
>
>Far too many people believe that competent medical help and diagnosis
>is available at a hospital.  While medical science has made great
>strides from a few years ago, it is hardly the known quantity many
>people assume.  The human body is exceedingly complex and I doubt
>there is any area that is known adequately, to say nothing of
>proceedures which might remedy a malfunction.  Our technology
>and knowledge may look impressive when compared to only a few hundred
>years ago, but we have barely scratched the surface when it comes
>to understanding the function of the human body.

All of the terms are RELATIVE, Galen. Compare the knowledge of risks
associated with confronting a burglar in the middle of the night, with
the knowledges of risks associated with pregnancy. The knowledge in the
case of pregnancy is VASTLY greater. Compare the accuracy of measuring
such risks in the case of confronting a burglar in the middle of the night,
with the accuracy of measuring risks in the case of pregnancy. The accuracy
in the pregnancy case is VASTLY greater. Compare the likely speed of
professional response in the case of confronting a burglar in the middle of
the night to the likely speed of professional response in the case of a
pregnancy crisis in a hospital. Again, the speed is likely to be VASTLY
higher in the pregnancy case.

And, as if that weren't enough, here's a kicker:

    One of the more likely consequences of confronting a burglar in the
    middle, without a pre-emptive armed strike, is to become seriously
    wounded. Now we have a much more apples-to-apples scenario here:
    a wounded property-owner, perhaps many many miles from medical help,
    suffering from wounds inflicted SPECIFICALLY to cause maximum
    bodily damage to the victim, if not to kill. Can you honestly say
    that the controllability of the situation in that case is comparable
    to a normal pregnancy? I don't think even you would stretch that far...

>}Remember though, that
>}I'm comparing pregnancy to encountering a burglar on one's property in the
>}middle of the night; all of the relative terms -- "known risk", "accurately
>}measured", "professional help", etc. -- should be read in that context.
>
>Darn, I forgot that.  In other words, you would have "accurate" mean
>"with greater accuracy" than your burglary example, and that "known"
>means "greater probability of quantifying" in one example than
>the other.  I didn't quibble with "professional help," as I have
>always distinguished "professional" from "competent."  Your assumption
>that it can be summoned in a matter of seconds is simply untrue.

Quibble, quibble, quibble. Okay, make it "minutes" if you want. But you'll
still have a tough time convincing me that police generally arrive at the
scene of a reported burglary faster than the on-call doctor in a hospital
arrives "on the scene" of a hospital medical emergency.

                                - Kevin