NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/abortion/54355

Text File | 1993-01-06 | 5.6 KB | 118 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
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]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 18:47:09 GMT
Lines: 103

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>From article <[e-mail]>,
>by [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran):
>> In article <[e-mail]>
>> [e-mail] (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>
>> [Lots of deletions, since I'm not goin to comment on it all.]
>
>>>Our 7-week-old son Joseph is quite a noisemaker
>>>but seems largely incapable of "meaningful communication".
>
>> You have not yet learned how to tell if he is using a "feed me" cry,
>> or a "change me" cry, or a "hold me" cry, or a "damn, that hurt" cry?
>> Take a vacation and play with the kid. I consider that meaningful
>> communication. :)
>
>"Take a vacation."  Is that doctor's orders, Mark? :-)  My intent was
>to ask 1) whether Joseph's crude "communication" skills could be nothing
>more than responses to certain situations (i.e., not deliberate attempts
>to communicate) and 2) whether Joseph's ability to "communicate" was
>significantly different from that of certain fetuses.
>
>>>Death is a reasonable end
I think a medical prescription for a vacation is a fine idea... Now if
we can just convince employers that it is... :)
1) Are *our* communications nothing more then responses to situations?
Yes, ours are (hopefully) more sophisticated. It doesn't make a 7 week
old babies efforts less meaningful.
2) I've never seen a fetus that could communicate at even the level of
a 7 week old baby.

I don't want to get into the argument about whether a preemie (which
would normally have still been a fetus) can communicate after some
point. I'll certainly admit that a late term fetus and a newborn
infant have very few differences. I'm even willing to discuss ways to
remove late term fetuses from women without killing the fetus (as long
as it does not increase the risks the woman is taking).
What I do object to is people (no, I'm not accusing you) who try to
legislate this. I don't see it as fit for legislation. Further, in my
experience, it is a null problem. In the (few) cases I have seen in
which it became necessary to terminate a pregnancy very late, the
fetus was delivered either via c-section or induced labor. Every
effort was made to save the resulting neonate.
In these cases, the termination was done because of risks to the
mother (i.e. pre-eclampsia goin full blown eclampsia). I've only seen
one case in which the termination was due to fetal abnormalities. The
fetus was *extremely* large (mother was diabetic), and had a malformed
heart (only 3 chambers). The pregnancy was terminated because of the
risks to the mother of allowing the fetus to continue to grow (it was
14 pounds at 31 weeks estimated gestational age), and the
impossibility of the fetus ever being able to survive, even if it
*was* delivered alive.
Basically, I think the issue is adequately dealt with by medical
ethics and professional standards.

>>>to personhood.  Can we accept others?  Are we really prepared to live
>>>with the logical consequences?
>
>> Let me guess. You've never had to pull the plug on a ventilator have
>> you?
>
>No.  If you have, then I must express my admiration and my appreciation
>(seriously) to you for being willing to do this.  But Mark, I'm not
>sure what this has to do with the point I was making, namely that
>certain ideas of personhood seem to lead to temporary and conditional
>personhood.
>
I have been involved with several cases in which life support has been
terminated. It ain't fun, and it ain't any easier for the staff then
it is for the family involved.
Yes, personhood is temporary and conditional. It always has been. We
don't consider a corpse a person. Nor, if I understand you correctly,
can an individual in a persistant vegitative state, with no realistic
chance of ever awakening, be considered a person. Not in the sense
that we are obligated to sustain mere bodily functions. In more and
more cases, it is becoming painfully clear that we are doing patients
no favor by artificially sustaining "life".
It's sad, but the expression "the lights are on, but nobody is home"
fits. I do think it is fitting to allow a non-person (former person,
whatever term you want to use) to die.

>>>> And since when do only
>>>> people's lives deserve respect?  If I run a live cat through a wood
>>>> chipper, I'm breaking the law against cruelty to animals.
>
>>>How about if you anesthetize it first?
>
>> Or at least hit it on the head with a hammer...
>
>Question:  Do you like cats?
>Answer:  No, but then I've never really found a good recipe...
>
Medieval Battle Strategy:
Set cats tail on fire, and launch them over the town walls with
CATapults. In the confusion of the resulting fire, over-run the city.
(And all this time you thought catapults were for throwing rocks,
right? :)  )

--
                  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.