NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/57742

Text File | 1993-01-24 | 6.2 KB | 130 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
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: Sun, 24 Jan 93 21:58:59 GMT
Lines: 115

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:
>>>>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.
>
>You impress the crap outta me with your immense medical prowess, O Great
>Healer.
>
It's not my fault you're so incredibly ignorant. Blame it on your
parents for not making you do your homework.

>>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?
>
>Yup, an inexpensive one. Once medical science does its bit, then engineering
>and manufacturing can work to make the device cheaper. This is assuming that
>engineering and manufacturing can pry the secrets loose from the claws of
>the Medical Elite, of course. After all, more expensive metal mommas mean
>more medical insurance $$$'s, right?
>
Really? You think so do you? well, lets take an example of a little
piece of equipment that's been around longer then the PC. The EKG
machine. 15 years ago, an EKG machine cost roughly $8000. Today, they
cost upwards of $18,000. Guess what? Building them is no secret. The
cost certainly hasn't been going down the way you claim it will.
Lets look at another piece of equiment, a little more sophisticated.
During the 1940's an iron lung cost about $4000. Today, a ventilator
runs more like $45,000. Guess what Kebbin? It's no big secret how
they're built either.
Guess your faith in 'engineering and manufacturing' doesn't quite
hold up to reality, does it? Now explain how you think the costs of an
incubator wil go down? Be specific, and please, keep it to *this*
world. Don't forget to pay the staff either.

>>Kibble, a vaccine
>>against the mumps will cost you $50 in most pediatricians office. And
>>the cost certainly is not going down.
>
>The cost "wasn't going down" on my 1200 bps modem when I bought it several
>years ago, either. Now I could buy the same for maybe 1/10 the price. Of
>course, no-one actually USES 1200 bps modems, so mine gathers dust now.
>
And only a true idiot would try to compare a modem to life support
technology, Kibble. And even if your analogy has any validity, the
only thing we can conclude is that by the time the metal momma becomes
affordable, it will be obsolete.
Are you advocating the use of obsolete equipment for something as
obviously important to you as the life of a fetus, Kibble?
And to be consistent, do you then go to small rural hospitals where
they use older, obsolete equipment to treat you? Do you settle for an
xray when you really need an MRI or a CT scan?
If not, I'm afraid your exposing yourself as a hypocrite again.

>>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.
>
>I never said "near future".
>
>The point here is not to legislate with the assumption that an inexpensive
>auto-momma is just around the corner; it's to legislate using a STRUCTURE
>which will accommodate inexpensive auto-mommas if and when they arrive.
In other words, you want to base legislation on your fantasies about
what may possibly someday be available, (but obsolete before it's
affordable, according to your analogy). Thanks for making that
perfectly clear Kebbin.

[Child support whining deleted]
Kebbin, do I ever post/read/anything in alt.child.support? No? Then
what possible relevance do you think ranting about child support here
has?

>>But since it's you, it's quite possibly both.
>
>Cheap shot.
>
You get what you're worth Kebbin. What more need be said?

--
                  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.