NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/58434

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 3.8 KB | 77 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Who, me???
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:42:09 GMT
Lines: 66

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>[Note that I've dropped alt.flame, since I'm only addressing the facts.]
>>>
>>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>>>>>This is turning into your "it's not legal in every state to use lethal force
>>>>>>>to stop a rape" thing, isn't it?  Why don't you stop waffling, and just
>>>>>>>give us a situation (hypothetical or not) where ending a pregnancy is more
>>>>>>>dangerous to the woman than continuing it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A 28-week pregnant woman, without any discernible medical complications,
>>>>>>announces her wish to end her pregnancy by having her fetus sucked out through
>>>>>>her spine, heart and cerebellum. Should she be allowed to abort in this
>>>>>>manner?
>>>>>
>>>>>Kindly provide the name of any medical doctor qualified to perform abortions
>>>>>who would perform an abortion in this manner under any circumstance, and I'll
>>>>>get back to you...
>>>>
>>>>You are adding stipulations that weren't contained in the original question,
>>>>Keith.
>>>
>>>Well, you did it first, Kevin.  Keith asked you to give a situation where
>>>ending a pregnancy is more dangerous to the woman than continuing it.  You
>>>did not - you gave a situation where ending the pregnancy *in the manner
>>>you specified* is more dangerous, but gave no reason to believe that
>>>simply ending the pregnancy in the normal manner would be more dangerous.
>>
>>The "normal manner" stipulation did not exist in the original question,
>>Larry. It is a recent innovation. I have met my part of this challenge.
>
>"In the manner specified by a suicidal patient" wasn't in the original
>question either.

No, but neither was it precluded. I met the terms of the challenge AS WRITTEN.
It's not my fault that the challenge was so vague as to leave a huge loophole.

>The question was:
>   Why don't you stop waffling, and just give us a situation
>   (hypothetical or not) where ending a pregnancy is more
>   dangerous to the woman than continuing it?
>
>You've given no reason to believe that ending the pregnancy in the situation
>you specified would be more dangerous than continuing.

Depends on the MANNER of termination, doesn't it? That's the whole point.

>Certainly ending it
>*in the manner* you specified would be more dangerous, but that was not part
>of the question.  It seems you've failed to meet the challenge.

I have met the challenge as written. If someone wants to re-issue another
challenge that lacks that loophole, they are certainly welcome to do so.

                                - Kevin

"The mother's egg was there, in it's natural habitat.  It is only the
 introduction of the sperm that creates a zygote.  Thus, we should load up all
 this responsibility for tresspass upon the male."
                Adrienne Regard, [e-mail]
                13 Jan 1993 11:56:47 -0800
                <[e-mail]>