NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/fan/rushlim/14052

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 3.5 KB

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14052 talk.abortion:58372
Path: sparky!uunet!enterpoop.mit.edu!biosci!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news
From: [e-mail] (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:27:49 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 66
NNTP-Posting-Host: sahara.cs.utexas.edu

In article <[e-mail]] [e-mail] () writes:
][e-mail] (Paul Brinkley) writes:
]
]>...You know, I just played this game with a friend of mine this morning.  He's
]>pro-life, and so I offered him a sample of the pro-choice arguments I found
]>here.  His views are perhaps a tad extreme; he doesn't believe the fetus is
]>even a part of the mother, on the grounds that it's something the mother's
]>body would reject if not for the placental wall surrounding it.  Therefore,
]>the mother's rights don't extend into the womb, period.
]
]>I replied that she _still_ has to carry some umpty-ump pounds of water
]>around for nine months, and take part in a process with a considerably
]>high chance of developing medical complications, and so part of her body
]>or not, she's definitely involved.  He replied that "it's possible to have
]>it taken out".  I replied that the cost would be prohibitive....
]                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
]Just how much is a human life worth?  Liver transplants cost 100K and more.

Sure, human life is worth a lot.  The "prohibitive cost" argument, to me,
is based on a projection of what would happen if fetal transplants, or a
similar alternative, were the only way to avoid birth.

Mark Cochran used this argument in reply to my post asking what state
research was in on what he refers to as "metal mommas".  I was inclined to
agree with him, even though I admit that his evidence may have been
one-sided.  The point is, trying to legislate something that would
obviously cost us more than we have would be impractical, even if it
means we will lose the lives of many fetuses (fetii??).

[some resolved arguments deleted, to prevent prohibitive cost...  :-) ]

]>>>Were it up to me, I
]>>>would look for another alternative.
]>>
]>>Can you tell us what other alternatives occur to you?
]
]>I admit, not a whole lot.  Embryo transplants.  "Metal mommas".  Better
]>contraceptives.  I fear our medical expert, Mark Cochran (who _still_
]>won't tell me what T.S.A.K.C. stands for), could knock most of my ideas
]>down as impractical, since he could argue circles around me when it
]>comes to the medical profession.
]
]Don't give Mr. Cochran so much credit.  There are plenty of other
]medically educated people who think abortion is disgusting and
]immoral.

Now I wouldn't do _that_.  :)  I referred to Mark simply because he was
the one who argued against "metal mommas".  I _do_ think he is
well-groomed, shall we say, in the medical field.  (At least, better
groomed than I am.  I'm a medical mongrel. :) )

[more snip.  Parsnip.]

]>....I refuse to think of this as "Mother vs. Fetus in the
]>Battle of the Century", one must win, the other must lose.  I'd rather
]>see both win.
]
]As of right now, this is Mother vs. Unborn Baby.  Either one is killed,
]or both live and one has 9 months of discomfort (not including the
]actual birth).

As of right now, sure.  I'd very much like to change that.

Paul Brinkley
[e-mail]
Pro-Thought Advocate