js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (01/17/85)
> > And do you mean that you would support a law forbidding third > > trimester abortions? (Definitely not a rhetorical question). > > My answer to that is "maybe." Such a law would have to be based > on medical evidence that a third-trimester fetus is (probably) > capable of thought, and that there are no other overriding philosophical > aguments. I'm another pro-choicer who wouldn't be upset by such a law. Some arbitrary line must divide between fertilized eggs and babies, in terms of when they are accorded the legal status of human beings. Currently, that arbitrary line has been drawn by our society at birth; anti-abortionists want to draw the line much earlier. Where SHOULD the line be? Well, a lot of people are unhappy with the each of the naturally occuring dividing lines, conception and birth. Maybe we should consider a compromise? I'm sure that there exists no compromise which would satisfy everyone; I'm sure there IS a compromise which satisfies more people than either endpoint would. After all, if someone accidentally gets pregnant, they should be able to find out about it within 8 weeks, even in the worst of circumstances. A four month limit should be enough time for anyone who needs an abortion to find that out, decide what to do, and arrange an abortion if that is what they decide to do. This wouldn't be interfering with anyone's freedom (much), and would prevent the abortion of fetuses which have developed enough that tney MAY be capable of concious thought. I don't really know enough about the stages of human developement here. Perhaps someone could post some (undistorted) information relating time since conception with fetal development. Well, how about it? Are there any anti-abortionists who would be satisfied with a 6 or 5 or 4 month limit? Are there any pro-choicers who would be satisfied with such a compromise? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Know thou, O rash and foolish mortal, that this is none other than the infamous subterranean abode of Zazamanc the Archmage. Abandon hope, all ye who linger here."
anderson@ittvax.UUCP (Scott Anderson) (01/18/85)
> > > And do you mean that you would support a law forbidding third > > > trimester abortions? (Definitely not a rhetorical question). > > > > My answer to that is "maybe." Such a law would have to be based > > on medical evidence that a third-trimester fetus is (probably) > > capable of thought, and that there are no other overriding philosophical > > aguments. > * * * > I don't really know enough about the stages of human developement here. > Perhaps someone could post some (undistorted) information relating time since > conception with fetal development. > Well, how about it? Are there any anti-abortionists who would be satisfied > with a 6 or 5 or 4 month limit? Are there any pro-choicers who would be > satisfied with such a compromise? > > -- > Jeff Sonntag > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j According to Newsweek Jan 14, 1985, p. 22: ...the scientific assumptions on which @i(Roe v. Wade) was based, namely that viability begins only in the third trimester of pregnancy. From this it followed abortions were permissible in the other two trimesters--on demand and without restriction in the first, held the court. In other words, I think that what Jeff is proposing is what the law already is: Abortion on demand, previous to the last trimester. But I also want to respond to Jeff's questions about compromise. Again quoting Newsweek, p. 21: Predictably, then, abortion present the American political system with an almost unique difficulty. A system built on interest-group bargaining is well-suited to producing compromise, but abortion is one of the rare issues that inherently does not admit compromise. Just as a woman cannot be a little bit pregnant, neither can her fetus be a little bit aborted. And if one side adopts the relativist view that human life is achieved by degrees over nine months of gestation, while the other takes the absolutist position that life begins at conception, it is nearly impossible to imagine the meeting point that would satisfy both. I agree, without reservation. Anyone who's been reading this newsgroup as long as I have must have realized by now that no one is flexible or compromising in their beliefs. Abortion is simply not a resolvable issue. Eventually, I believe, one side will be much more powerful than the other, and will simply force their beliefs on the other. Again quoting Newsweek, quoting Mario Cuomo: "a law not for the believers who don't need it but for the disbelievers who reject it." I hope this was interesting. -- Scott D. Anderson decvax!ittvax!anderson 203-385-7451 or 203-375-0200 for operator
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (01/19/85)
I asked: > > > And do you mean that you would support a law forbidding third > > > trimester abortions? (Definitely not a rhetorical question). Jeff Sonntag replies: > I'm another pro-choicer who wouldn't be upset by such a law. Some > arbitrary line must divide between fertilized eggs and babies, in terms > of when they are accorded the legal status of human beings. Currently, > that arbitrary line has been drawn by our society at birth; > anti-abortionists want to draw the line much earlier. Nice statement of the problem. "Birth" is not as clear a term as it appears, however. There are natural births (both full-term and premature), medically induced births (by means of labor-inducing drugs), and surgical births (Caesareans). Consider that a premature birth can result in a living child which is older, gestationally, than some aborted fetuses. Consider also the abortion techniques which closely resemble medically induced births and surgical births, and you ought to be able to understand why anti-abortionists object. > Where SHOULD the line be? Well, a lot of people are unhappy with > each of the naturally occuring dividing lines, conception and birth. > Maybe we should consider a compromise? I'm sure that there exists no > compromise which would satisfy everyone; I'm sure there IS a compromise > which satisfies more people than either endpoint would. > After all, if someone accidentally gets pregnant, they should be > able to find out about it within 8 weeks, even in the worst of > circumstances. A four month limit should be enough time for anyone > who needs an abortion to find that out, decide what to do, and > arrange an abortion if that is what they decide to do. This wouldn't > be interfering with anyone's freedom (much), and would prevent the > abortion of fetuses which have developed enough that they MAY be > capable of conscious thought. > I don't really know enough about the stages of human developement > here. Perhaps someone could post some (undistorted) information > relating time since conception with fetal development. > Well, how about it? Are there any anti-abortionists who would > be satisfied with a 6 or 5 or 4 month limit? Are there any pro-choicers > who would be satisfied with such a compromise? I don't know if "satisfied" is the right word for it, but I would favor such a law, if only because it would be an improvement over what exists now. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/21/85)
I would go along with Gary's position on changing the law. An improvement would be most welcome. Polls show that most people (over 70%, I think) would favor a law prohibiting abortion except in cases of rape, incest, danger to the mother's life and severe birth defects (e.g. a condition where the infant is born with no brain.). That's probably where the law should stand now to reflect the consensus. I have problems with accepting a compromise (Jeff's proposal) which whould require us to agree to it as a final solution. Making such a significant change would require us to think through the whole issue again in the new context. If the motive behind the compromise is so we don't have to think about the issue anymore I think it's not acceptable. If we view it as a step in the right direction that doesn't close the issue for further debate, that's fine. Someone already quoted from the Jan. 14 issue of Newsweek. I think those were good articles. There are also some very good articles in the current issue of Christianity Today realating mainly to "baby Doe" cases. There is an interview with a physician who works in the neonatal care unit at the U. of Kentucky (The largest facility of it's kind, I think). He talks about medical ethics in view of changing technology. There are also a few short articles (responses to the interview from various people) and a written statement from C. Everett Koop (Surgeon General). All these are very much worth reading for those interested. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd