NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/talk/abortion/46701

Text File | 1992-11-06 | 9.1 KB | 219 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!sdd.hp.com!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Who, me???
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:30:07 GMT
Lines: 208

(Sorry for the time lag. Apparently my original answer to this never got
propagated beyond cfctech.cfc.com and/or its neighbors).

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (rocker) writes:
>[e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (rocker) writes:
>>>[e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Ah, I see it now. The big lie about me being an anti-choicer is just an
>>excuse to dodge my probing inquiries. An "out" for the mentally lazy.
>
>Which of your inquiries have I "dodged", Darcy?

The central one, for starters:

    How many viable lives would have to be terminated without good cause
    before you'd permit preventitive legislation restricting late-term
    abortions?

You never directly answered this.

>>>The answer is that I believe a woman has the right to
>>>end her pregnancy at any time, for any reason.

So, may I assume your answer is

    ANY NUMBER of viable lives could be terminated without good cause
    before [I'd] permit legislation restricting late-term abortions

?? Or, put more simply,

    I don't give a damn; croak the little buggers

>>What if she's a malicious psychopath who only conceived the child in the
>>first place so she could have it tortured and killed moments before birth,
>>and she could gloat over the videotape of the whole thing for years
>>afterwards?
>
>Then this goes quite a bit beyond simply "ending a pregnancy", doesn't
>it?

I don't particularly see WHY -- we can just say that the torture is "part of"
the "medical procedure" and *POOF!* that makes it all hunkey-dorey fine, right?

>If that's the _reason_ she wants to end her pregnancy, fine.

You would condone abortions performed for such sick, depraved reasons, and
yet you disclaim the label "Extremist"?!?!?! What do you suppose could be more
"extreme" than that?!?!?!

>I do not feel the pregnant woman has a right to demand
>that the fetus be born dead.  Neither C-section nor induced labor
>kill the fetus, in and of themselves.

Would you be willing to restrict post-viability abortions to those methods,
then, and/or similar methods which offer the fetus a good chance of survival?

If not, then what is the point of your two sentences above?

>>>If what you wax so
>>>hysterical about is a higher fetal death rate from these procedures
>>>than from full-term labor, then you are prefectly free to try and
>>>convince me that you have an excellent reason for overriding the
>>>medical judgement of doctors and legislating that some certain
>>>technique MUST, IN ALL CASES be used.
>
>>You are parodying my supposed position, without even bothering to hear what
>>it is first, Cathi. Here it is again: I DO *NOT* SUPPORT ANY RESTRICTIVE
>>ABORTION LEGISLATION!!! Is that starting to sink in yet?
>
>Gosh Darcy, I thought you said this was all hypothetical.

Indeed it is. Glad you recognize it. Now, could you please tell me what on
earth made you think I'd like to convince ANYONE that certain abortion
techniques should be legislated?

>>>>The sentence did NOT imply that restrictive abortion legislation was
>>>>"overdue" HERE AND NOW -- only that they would be "overdue" within the
>>>>hypothetical I presented.
>>>
>>>And so I reiterate - I have no use for "feelgood" legislation.
>
>>Define "'feelgood' legislation", please.
>
>Legislation that sounds really neat, but addresses a problem that
>has not been shown to exist.  I think it's a reallyreallyreally Bad
>Idea to make laws about things that don't happen.
>
>Example: We all agree people shouldn't inject peanut butter into
>their veins.  We outlaw it, congratulating ourselves for preventing
>all those poor crazy people from injecting peanut butter into their
>veins.  Five years later, we discover that peanut oil injections
>fight breast cancer.  But wait!......
>
>What the hell is the point of passing this sort of law?

I take it you are opposed to Cochran's legal restriction, then, since it
has never been demonstrated that it addresses a problem which exists?

>>Does it cover ALL preventitive
>>legislation? Do you think it is sane policy to wait until a social problem
>>is out of control before even _starting_ to address it with legislation?
>
>You continue to make the assumption that the problem _exists_.  I do
>not, nor have I seen any reason _to_, make that assumption.

I do not make that assumption, Cathi, quit with the straw man. The very
word "preventitive" IMPLIES that the thing to be prevented may not
necessarily exist. If it DID already exist, we wouldn't "prevent" it, now
would we: we'd "cure" it. However, while acknowledging that the problem may
not exist currently, I also acknowledge that

    a) the problem could EASILY come into existence at any time

        and, if it does, then

    b) by the time the problem is known, and addressed, and legislation is
       passed, many lives will have been needlessly lost, and those who
       argued against preventitive legislation, such as yourself, would be
       greatly to blame for those lost lives

>>Analogy: do you wait until your engineering problems are out of control
>>before writing a spec?
>
>No Darcy, I wait until I see that a problem exists.

So, if you were, say, a civil engineer, you'd wait until automobiles were
plunging into a river before you designed a bridge there to address the
problem? Can you say "reactionary"? I knew you could. Is that the kind of
engineering they're teaching these days? Reactionary engineering? Sounds
more like politics to me.

>>>>Here is the same central question again, in a more generic, and hopefully
>>>>less vulnerable format:
>>>
>>>>    How many viable lives would have to be terminated without good cause
>>>>    before you'd permit preventitive legislation restricting late-term
>>>>    abortions?
>>>
>>>Darcy, now you're on another subject entirely.
>
>>Nope, not at all. In my previous post, I asked:
>
>>    You don't think there is any room for preventitive laws, Cathi? You're
>>    willing for the blood of unnecessary late-term abortions to stain your
>>    hands BEFORE you would allow (overdue) restrictive legislation to be
>>    passed? Isn't this the same "retroactive social planning" that has
>>    made such a mess of our government already?
>
>>Other than different phrasing, the questions are the same. But your evasion is
>>starting to waver a bit...
>
>Bullshit.  I am addressing early termination of pregnancy.

"Unnecessary late-term abortions" => "Viable lives terminated w/o good cause"

>>>My position is that
>>>a woman has the right to end her pregnancy at any time, for any
>>>reason.  I don't think you are in a particularly good position
>>>to mandate that the pregnancy must be ended in a certain WAY
>>>to save these hypothetical "viable lives",
>
>>The viability of those lives is NOT hypothetical, Cathi, they are
>>documented scientific facts.
>
>More bullshit, Darcy.  These "documented scientific facts" deal in
>viability _percentages_.  Hint: The viability percentage for full-term
>births is NOT 100%.  Medicine does not and cannot guarantee the
>survival of any individual fetus, as there are conditions that only
>manifest themselves after detachment/birth.  Digestive difficulties,
>for one thing.

Straw man. I never said that viability wasn't PROBABILISTIC; I disputed
that viability was HYPOTHETICAL. Do you understand the distinction?

>>>...but you're certainly
>>>free to try and get YOUR medical judgement written into law.
>
>>First, the medical judgments are not the focus of the controversy here --
>>it's the social, political and/or legal judgments that are. Medicine can only
>>answer questions like "what are the risks to the mother?" and "what are the
>>risks to the fetus?". But when and whether the second question is considered
>>IMPORTANT or not cannot be answered by medicine alone.
>
>Let me spell it out for you.  If you wish to make a law that says
>"Given the choice between two (or more) termination procedures that are of
>equal health risk and equal cost to the patient, the doctor MUST
>use the procedure which is more likely to result in a live birth.",
>I wouldn't raise a peep of protest.  You are free to try and protect
>the fetus' life if you can do so without interfering with the rights
>of the woman.

I wish to make no such law, Cathi. For the umpteenth time -- I don't support
any legislative restrictions on abortion. However, I am curious whether you
would oppose a similar law which substituted "comparable health risk" for
"equal health risk".

>>Second, for hopefully the last time: I DO *NOT* SUPPORT ANY RESTRICTIVE
>>ABORTION LEGISLATION!!!! So please stop stating or implying that this is
>>my view. You are dead wrong.
>
>Gosh Darcy, I thought this was all hypothetical.

Indeed it is. Glad you recognize it. Now, could you please tell me what on
earth made you think I'd wish to get my "medical judgment written into law"?

                                - Kevin