rlk@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Robert L Krawitz) (10/09/86)
In article <1242@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> melissa@trillian.UUCP (Melissa Silvestre) writes: > >My main problem with that is that modern medicine has (or will soon) reached >the point where NO abortions will be allowed on the basis that the >fetus is viable (can be kept alive outside of the mother for a full 9 months). If there is a simple, safe procedure to remove a fetus/embryo from the womb, and keep it alive, that's great. I'm definitely pro-choice, but I don't believe that that means a choice of embryo-removal procedures has to be given, if the possible choices have equal outcome for the woman. >I would rather accept an arbitrary time limit, like " you have X months >to determine if the genetic makeup of the fetus is such that you wish to >abort it - beyond that you may not kill it." Where X months is sufficient >for reasonable determinations. Of course, as medicine improves, X may >also drop. Until it does, however, I don't want technical, "miracles-of- >medicine" viability preventing me from making an informed decision. If you don't want to carry the fetus in your body, that's fine. But once it leaves the body of the woman carrying it, it isn't causing her a problem any more and thus I don't believe that she has any right to decide what happens to it. If we kill a viable fetus, than it's more like infanticide. I support right of choice on abortion of pregnancy. If that changes to abortion of the embryo/fetus, when the ability to abort the pregnancy is no longer in question, then it's a different question. A viable fetus is an independent life-form. Killing an independent life-form is something that I can't condone. >I'd like to know, how do other pro-choice'ers deal with the fact that >0 months is rapidly becoming the age of viability? Great. If the embryo can be removed immediately, and kept alive, that solves the whole abortion question once and for all. >What if a $50 operation = abortion (kills it) but a certain $100,000 >procedure can keep it alive at exactly the same stage? That's a different issue, if the two procedure carry equal risk and the woman isn't paying the difference. > Viable according >to what level of medical technology (and what price?) >Would you force me to beggar myself to pay for an operation that >would enable the State to keep the fetus alive until it can be >adopted? No. > Can we as taxpayers afford for the State to pay for >such expensive medical procedures? That's a matter for us, the taxpayers, to decide if cost is the deciding factor. >I consider these to be very real questions, that need answering before >I can accept viability as my overriding criterion. See first paragraph of my response. >>The key phrase is "No man has the right to force me to bear his child." >>Once you have had the fetus removed from your body, you are no longer >>bearing it. Killing it is, in your own terms, "negative" rather than >>"positive" eugenics, and I find it unacceptable. > >I don't understand this at all. HOW I remove it can very well determine >whether it is still alive when I walk out of the clinic. One procedure >costs more money than the other. Who should pay the difference? >Does anyone even have the right to force me (at their financial expense) >to choose one over the other? No one said that one procedure would cost much more than the other. The state should pay the difference, if there is any. If it isn't riskier for the woman, then it's reasonable for the state to decide. >Here in the early 1980's, I can accept viability as a good dividing line, >because it still gives me sufficient time to make the choice that I >consider crucial. My concern is that that will not continue to be the >case in the future. The reasonable choice for the woman is whether to carry the fetus or not. The unreasonable choice is letting her decide explicitly whether the fetus will be brought to term outside her body or killed. >-- >Melissa Silvestre (melissa@athena.mit.edu) -- Robert^Z