NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/talk/abortion/28977

Text File | 1992-07-26 | 5.0 KB | 108 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!kcochran
From: [e-mail] (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: "Ice Cubes Applied To The Genitals..."
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 16:23:52 GMT
Lines: 93

[Lots and lots of unmarked deletions...]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>   (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes: >
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>   (Keith A. Cochran) writes: >>>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>>
>
>>>Risk is relative to the health of the respective woman and her ability
>>>to safely carry a pregnancy to term as determined by her physician.
>>
>>So, if a doctor lies, and signs his name to a statement saying that
>>carrying the pregnancy to term is likely to kill the woman, she can
>>have an abortion?
>
>Sure, if he's willing to take that kind of risk.  Most, I imagine,
>wouldn't be.

There's very little risk involved, as I'll point out below.
>
>>How are you going to verify that the doctor isn't lying?  Require two
>>doctors to sign?  Require a panel?
>
>How about this:  most physicians aren't willing to falsify diagnostic
>information; the consequences (if discovered) simply aren't worth it.

He wouldn't have to falsify anything, Bill.  All he'd have to do is sign a
statement saying that "In my opinion, carrying this pregnancy to term involves
many health risks to the patient".  If pressed, he can point to something like
a CPK reading (which increases throughout pregnancy, I'm told), and state that
this, along with consultation with the patient, indicated to him that an
abortion was an acceptable option, if the patient was willing.
>
>>I hate to tell you this, Bill, but human life, like all things is a
>>commodity.  Diamonds are only valuable because they are (1)scarce, and
>>(2)humans place a value on them for various reasons.  Human life has
>>no _objective_ value, just as animal and tree life have no _objective_
>>value.  [Let's not go into the subjective values of these things, ok?]
>
>This is one of those points on which I base my entire (pro-life) position.
>*If* human life has no objective value, then the worth of anyone's life
>is relative to individual opinion.  If such a belief becomes a dominant
>cultural value, then we're likely in for a very scary ride, because there
>is no ethic that supersedes the arbitrariness of human opinion.  Then it's
>(potentially) open season on any particular class of people that fails to
>conform to the majority's definition of "valuable".

Um, so you're arbitrarily stating that the z/e/f is more "valuable" then the
woman it's attached to?

No, you're not.  You've already stated that you would allow abortion in case
of health problems to the woman.

Care to explain this last statment of yours?  I think I understand where you're
coming from, but I'd like to be sure.  Maybe in a new thread?
>
>I *know* that's a Slippery Slope Scenario(tm), but the possibilities are
>frightening, nevertheless.

I'm not so sure it's valid, though.  There's a major difference between giving
a pregnant woman the "right to decide what to do with her body", and "rounding
up the already born undesirables".

>>Ok.  I know that I'm the only person who would be an acceptable organ doner
>>for "Jerry".  I go out and intentionally do something that causes "Jerry's"
>>kidney's to fail.  The government cannot force me to donate a kidney _or any
>>other body part/resource_ to save Jerry's life, even though I'm the one who
>>caused his prediciment.
>>
>>Now what?
>
>Now you're arrested for some combination of assault, battery, attempted
>murder, etc.  I hope, for your sake, that Jerry doesn't die.
>

That's very true.  However, what you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is:

Woman engages in sex --> Give up bodily resources.
   (Cause)                      (Effect)

Keith causes Jerry problems --> Not give up bodily resources.
   (Cause)                              (Effect)

See where I have a problem with this?
--
=[e-mail] | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=