home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!iat.holonet.net!uupsi!psinntp!coopsol!gordons
- From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
- Message-ID: <1992Aug31.200607.17132@coopsol.com>
- Date: 31 Aug 92 20:06:07 GMT
- References: <1992Aug17.160630.23938@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> <1992Aug20.210023.11560@noao.edu> <1992Aug27.234035.23177@csus.edu>
- Organization: Stay Awake Software
- Lines: 74
-
- <1992Aug27.234035.23177@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) said:
- ><1992Aug20.210023.11560@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
- >>From article by bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman):
- >>>
- >>> The figure on third trimester abortions is that they represent
- >>> less than one in one thousand abortions performed in America.
- >>
- >>1/1000 * (1.5 million) = 1500 babies per year = 4 viable babies per day,
- >>every single day of the year, that are put to death for no fault of their
- >>own. So this is what America stands for, is it.
-
- Actually, the numbers I read say it is less than 1/10 of 1%, which puts the
- actual number at 1/1100 * (1.3 million) = less than 1200 fetuses.
-
- >Well, Suzanne, I can say this:
- >A third trimester fetus can survive independently of the mother.
-
- Very good.
-
- >That means all abortions should be outright banned in the third
- >trimester because no woman needs to kill a fetus that old, because
- >s/he can survive independently.
-
- This doesn't follow from your above statement. Although I agree that
- once the fetus has been removed from the woman the abortion has been
- accomplished. What happens to the fetus at that point is of no
- consequence to me.
-
- >Unless pro-choice really means a woman has a right to demand that the
- >fetus be killed simply because she wants to kill someone who can't
- >fight back, there is absolutely, positively no way between here and
- >three trips to hell and back, that the woman has any right to a dead
- >fetus in the third trimester.
-
- This paragraph is so bizarre in concept and description as to be
- meaningless. Pro-choice *doesn't* mean a woman can have someone killed
- just because she wants them killed. And pro-choice doesn't give a woman
- the right to a dead fetus as the law requires the proper disposal of
- medical waste.
-
- BTW, a woman (or man) for that matter can *demand* anything. They just
- can't *have* everything they demand.
-
- >In short, the law should demand that the procedure result in a live
- >fetus and the use of an incubator, with no exceptions.
-
- Gee, can we whine like Suzanne does about the general public having to
- *pay* for the incubation?
-
- >There is no reason not to enforce this law quite vigorously.
-
- My, my... These Republicans sure do want a lot of restrictive government,
- don't they?
-
- >Not even for deformities. No law presently allows killing someone
- >because of deformities.
- >
- >It is this reason that "pro-choice" has always and always will mean
- >"anti-life."
-
- What reason? How can supporting a woman's right to give birth "always
- [will] mean 'anti-life'"?
-
- Could you explain this please?
-
-
- Gordon
- Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
- Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
- and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
- --
- The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
- of whatever company you think I work for. So there, thhhbbbt!
- Message to Kodak: Freedom for Dan Bredy.
-