NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53316

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 5.8 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53316 alt.society.civil-liberty:7115 alt.rush-limbaugh:12379
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: None worth mentioning
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 16:43:24 GMT
Lines: 104

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>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.
>
>Is this "duty to salvage" specifically written anywhere? Or is this just
>your loose interpretation of medical ethics?
>
It's written in any number of places. The AMA and other professional
organizations spend a great deal of time and money developing
standards. Of course, since they are *laws* you won't be happy with
that.

>>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.
>
>What if the law REQUIRED you to kill the viable fetus at the mother's request,
>Mark? Then what? Would you violate the law, or your own personal and medical
>principles?
>
Another of your fantasies Kebbie?

>(And don't even start with that "it'd never happen" crap. I tire of such
>evasions.)
>
There is nothing evasive about trying to keep the discussion based in
the real world Kebbie. I realise you tire of reality, but try to hold
some grasp of it here.

>>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.
>
>I disagree. Medical ethics knows nothing about economic theory. Medical
>ethics is largely oblivious to evolving social awareness. Medical ethics
>reflects the narrow class and professional biases of those who formulate

How would you know what medical ethics is oblivious to, given that
you've ample demonstrated that you know *nothing* about the subject?

>it. As for the alternative, let's note first that not all legislators are
>lawyers (the most common "other" profession of Michigan legislators, for
>instance, is teacher, not lawyer). Secondly, let's also note that our whole
>political process is geared towards giving representation and empowerment to
>those who might not otherwise have it -- the poor, the ignorant, etc. --
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Planning on claiming minority status now Kebbie?

>and whose interests are NOT necessarily represented adequately by physicians
>formulating their beloved canons of ethics.
>
I disagree. I think that medical ethics does a good job of considering
the needs of all people involved.
Your only complaint seems to be that it is an ethical matter, not a
legislative matter. Medical ethics already requires what you are
argueing needs to be required by legislation. You have not presented
any evidence that there is aproblem, you have relied totally on
Blatant Assertion.

>Call it a distrust of doctors, call it a loathing of cosy little cliques,
>but I'd rather open up the issue to a wider forum than just the Golden
>Stethoscope Elite...
>
No, you'd rather see medical and personal decisions made by the Golden
Briefcase Elite.

>>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.
>
>This is incorrect. I have not spoken in support of any such legislation.
>The rest of your article, which was premised on this incorrect assumption,
>has been deleted without further comment from me.
>
Nice attempt at a dodge Kebbie. You are *constantly* argueing in favor
of legislation to mandate what actions may be taken before and after a
viability cut off date. You are doing so in this very article.
Of course, nobody expects you to be honest and admit it.

--
                  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.