NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53141

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-27 | 4.0 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53141 alt.society.civil-liberty:7078 alt.rush-limbaugh:12330
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: UM, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 03:10:14 GMT
Lines: 58

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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.
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.

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.
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. You have done this without
providing a shred of proof that ever effort is not already made to
save viable fetuses.
Here's a hypothetical situation for you Kebbin. And note that, unlike
yours, it is grounded in reality.
A couple opts for abortion because of severe developmental defects.
Ultrasonography indicates 24 weeks. Pre-viability, but close. Labor is
induced, and, suprisingly, results in a live birth.
Despite the fact that the fetus was estimated to be below the nominal
date for viablility, your legislation has passed, so we admit the
neonate to the NICU.
10-12 months later, the infant is ready to be discharged. We'll even
assume a few miracles have occured, and the infant is not in such bad
shape as to require permanent custodial care. The parents had opted
for abortion, and want nothing to do with the infant (remember, it is
*severely* defective). Are you willing to foot the bill for this
infants care? *Somebody* has to. And it's the legislation that *you*
argued in favor of that is responsible for his/her survival. Or are
you going to reverse yourself and say the parents should be *forced*
to foot the bill? If you do, I'll be sure and point that out in the
"male choice" threads where you claim men should not be forced to
support unwanted offspring.

--
                  Mark Cochran          [e-mail]
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.