NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53313

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 3.9 KB | 100 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
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: I'll let you know as soon as I figure it out...
References: <aidler.725417859@sanjuan> <[e-mail]> <aidler.725614614@sanjuan>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 16:16:12 GMT
Lines: 85

In article <aidler.725614614@sanjuan> [e-mail] (E Alan Idler) writes:
>[e-mail] (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
>>In article <aidler.725417859@sanjuan> [e-mail] (E Alan Idler) writes:
>>>I have to disagree that the pregnant woman or her physician
>>>alone have the right to terminate the life of the child.
>>>The child has a right to life (and quality of life) that must
>>>be balanced with the mother's right to life (and quality of
>>>life).
>>>
>>So, if a few women more women lose their lives, or
>>their 'quality of life' would that be more 'balanced'?
>
>An independent party needs to consider the opinion of
>experts along with the interests of mother and child and
>evaluate how realistic the woman's desire for an
>abortion is compared with any reasonable alternatives.
>
The only expert opinion needed is the womans. It's her body, and if
she doesn't want to feed a fetus, then she has the right to remove it.

>>>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.
>
>>This is not best for the woman.  Even when her request
>>is granted, she would be subjected to humiliating and
>>demeaning inquisition by strangers who may not always
>>have her best interests at heart.
>
>If there is a procedure to make this operate while
>preserving the dignity of those involved, I'd certainly
>entertain it because it would be more likely that
>people would support it.
>Could the woman be given the option of remaining
>anonymous?
>
Yeah, right. Wake up.

>>>Because there may be some urgency in the medical condition,
>>>these procedures should procede fairly rapidly.
>
>>What if 'fairly rapidly' is too slow, and the woman
>>dies?
>
>That is a medical emergency.
>When there is time to consider everyone's rights,
>it is our responsibility to do so.
>
You have yet to demonstrate that there are any rights here to be
considered other then the womans. A fetus is not a person, and has no
rights.

>>What if facing a 'state tribunal' is too intimidating?
>>Woulf you like to go back to the days of illegal, unsterile,
>>or self-induced abortion?
>
>If this state tribunal ensures that women are
>treated with a compassionate attitude (regardless
>of whether they receive an abortion or not),
>I believe they would participate in the process.
>
A compassionate state tribunal. There's an oxymoron if I've ever heard
one...

>Moreover, those women capable of delivering healthy
>children need the reassurance that they and their
>children will have some security in their futures.
>
So why do you think a woman has no purpose other then to deliver
healthy children? Perhaps she simply does not *want* to have children.
In such a situation, it is her right to remove the fetus.

>I would hope that when women see legitimacy in the
>process they wouldn't feel the need to go outside of
>society's institutions.
>
There is no legitimacy in the process you are describing.

--
                  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.