home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36554 alt.abortion.inequity:3753
- Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!dtix!oasys!bense
- From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
- Subject: On removing fetuses (Re: Observations)
- Message-ID: <25053@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
- Date: 15 Sep 92 14:43:21 GMT
- References: <Sep12.071229.20901@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> <g2yn=gf.gordons@netcom.com>
- Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
- Followup-To: talk.abortion
- Distribution: usa
- Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
- Lines: 30
-
- In talk.abortion, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
- >>Steve Arnold
-
- >If it [fetus] can
- >be removed in such a way that keeps it alive, and releases the woman from
- >*all* responsibility, then fine.
-
- Gordon, This is something I have to disagree with as a blanket statement.
- I realize that your clause "releases the woman from *all* responsibility"
- makes this a virtual impossibility, but no one should be forced to generate
- progeny, and that was what the Courts decided also, In the case I posted
- a while back which had a primary argument that embryos were not life,
- in the human sense. I would further extend this clause as:
-
- If a fetus can be removed alive, and the woman wishes that steps
- be taken to save it, whether she would be held responsible or
- not per her wishes, then those steps should be enacted. Otherwise,
- no steps would be taken to save the life of the fetus.
-
- >>Or false positives? And if so, just how susceptible? And why should your
- >>criteria be accepted and not someone else's?
-
- >Because it is one of the criteria we as "Americans" have prided ourselves
- >upon for the last 100 years: Freedom from slavery.
-
- And no more need be said, as this says it all.
-
- Ron
-
- Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
-