NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53262

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 3.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!rutgers!concert!uvaarpa!murdoch!galen.med.Virginia.EDU!gjh
From: [e-mail] (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Dec 92 01:14:33 GMT
References: <aidler.725417859@sanjuan> <[e-mail]> <aidler.725568793@sanjuan>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Lines: 73

In article <aidler.725568793@sanjuan> [e-mail] (E Alan Idler)
writes:
}[e-mail] (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}
}>In article <aidler.725417 859@sanjuan> [e-mail]
}>(E Alan Idler) writes:
}
}>}The child has *no* advocate and no voice -- yet faces grave
}>}consequences.
}
}>This is quite untrue.
}
}I can't determine which of my points you are challenging.
}In any case, I would challenge your assertion because:

Aside from many people who will tell you that the "child" does
not exist,

}1. who considers the child? (maybe nobody ...)

I do, among others.

}2. the child's entire existence is in the balance.

Once you have conceded that a child exists, existence is not changed
with or without an abortion.  Life perhaps, but not existence.

}>}                        The physician only receives a fee
}>}by performing the abortion and is, therefore, in no position
}>}to be impartial.
}
}>I don't think this sentence means what you think it does.
}
}Do you presume that all physicians always act in the
}best interest of the woman or child and never in their
}own self-interests?

Do you think your second sentence even remotely resembles your
first?   To answer your question posed in the second
sentence, certainly not.

}>}Therefore, the *only* way to provide an independent
}>}ajudication of these rights and do the best for all considered
}>}is to have the state provide an impartial tribunal to
}>}evaluate the situation.
}
}>How did we ever get along before "states"?  Btw, Virginia is a
}>commonwealth, would they have to change if they were to provide
}>a truly impartial tribunal?  And does that leave Canada Right
}>Out?  Or would you like to claim a la Kevin Darcy that "*only*"
}>means something other than singular, in this context...
}
}1.  state == government in general (in this instance)
}
}2.  A formal "court" probably isn't what is required (or
}appropriate) for this process, but I believe the
}government has a duty to mediate the rights of the
}mother and child.

OK.  Then you think that government is the "*only*" (your words)
possible provider of impartial ajudication.  Its not a new
thought, it isn't very original, nor is it very bright.

You might not know this, but the US government (among others)
has stepped in to mediate the rights of the mother and
"child."  There have been several court decisions
which speak to this.  Were you unaware of this, or just
unhappy about the decisions several have reached?

--
       hang gliding mailing list: [e-mail]
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr [phone] [e-mail]
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...