NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53511

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 4.1 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53511 alt.rush-limbaugh:12453
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!bsu-cs!bsu-ucs.uucp!00cmmiller
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Message-ID: <1992Dec30.094453.13310@bsu-ucs>
Date: 30 Dec 92 14:44:53 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's
Lines: 74

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


only one thing to say....
it's d&c, not d&e.  at least get your terminology correct before you
go off half-cocked.






>>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.