NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/57200

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-21 | 3.4 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57200 talk.religion.misc:27169 alt.atheism:26743
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
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: Thu, 21 Jan 93 21:55:07 GMT
Lines: 51

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] (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>>
>>[Deletions. Just 'cause I wanna]
>>
>>>If she mainly doesn't want the physical difficulty of the pregnancy
>>>process, how about an incubator that could support the fetus until
>>>its original projected birthdate?  Anyone happen know what state
>>>research is in concerning this?
>>>
>>No state at all, really. Look at it from a pragmatic standpoint. Are
>>*you* going to pay for this incubator? Please keep in mind that
>>current technology can easily run over $5000 a day for an NICU stay.
>>What you are describing would be vastly more complex, and
>>correspondingly more expensive.
>>It's a nice idea, but it just doesn't fit the realities of life. We
>>can't even save all the ones people *do* want, let alone the ones they
>>don't want.
>
>Yeah, and the world is flat, too, Mark. If you don't believe it, just keep
>sailing East until you fall off the edge...
>
>Since the dawn of time, visionaries have had to endure the constant whines
>and doubts and putdowns of non-visionaries. The wheel? It'll never work!
>Fire? Just a fad! Organ transplants? You're nuts! Even as a medical layperson,
>I can imagine an inexpensive "auto-momma", Mark. Maybe not in my lifetime, but
>sometime. Why can't you?
>
I can envision a metal momma just fine kibble, and no doubt in much
greater clarity and detail then you. But not in anything resembling
the near future. Nor did I say that efforts to push back the
survivability date were not underway. They are, obviously. And equally
obviouslly a metal momma has to be developed based on the knowledge we
are currently gaining.
Unlike you, however, I live in the Real World (tm) and this just is
not going to be a reality anytime soon. If you want to leave it open
to *incredibly* expensive metal mommas, then in perhaps 50-75 years,
we might see something. But an inexpensive one? Kibble, a vaccine
against the mumps will cost you $50 in most pediatricians office. And
the cost certainly is not going down. If you can envision an
inexpensive metal moma in the near future, you're either desperately in
need of a reality check, or merely woefully ignorant about life
support technologies.
But since it's you, it's quite possibly both.

--
                  Mark Cochran          [e-mail]
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.