Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp1!johnston
From: johnston@spp1.UUCP (Micheal L. Johnston)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: Re: gender difference
Message-ID: <198@spp1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-May-85 12:38:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: spp1.198
Posted: Tue May 14 12:38:45 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 17-May-85 03:55:57 EDT
References: <1743@ukma.UUCP>
Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach  CA
Lines: 62

> 
>      Now  how  do  I  reconcile  these  seemingly   opposite
> viewpoints?   I  do  and always have believed it is wrong to
> abort a fetus *IF* it is at the point where  it  could  live
> outside  the  mothers  body  without any extranormal support
> facilities.  Certainly within the  first  couple  of  months
> this  is  not  the case.  After six it is very questionable.
> So what do we do?  We put an arbitrary limit on  the  amount
> of  time  a  women can carry a sometime to be baby and still
> have an abortion.

Are incubators "extranormal". What's your decision on pre-mature babies?
It seems that would have the same rights ( or lack of in this case)
as a fetus at the same gestation in utero.
And what's this limit. Do I have to send someone else back to really read
the supreme court decision of '73? It is legal to abort up the point of
natural birth. And if there were a limit, how long would it be valid with
advances in neonatology?

> 
>      I don't believe in abortion as a means  of  birth  con-
> trol,   but  to  try and seperate the women who use abortion
> that way and women who have one abortion in their  lifetime,
> and  then allow one but not the other to have an abortion is
> not a feasable posibility.  So we end up with some who abuse
> the priveledge, like in everything else.

But at what cost?

> 
>      One of the articles I read said something about a fetus
> being  human.   It  is  not human.  It is simply an organism
> that may someday become human.  

Is this like evolution? What are the qualifications for admittance to the
species. I hope I've made it. Is your definiton of a human a member of the
species homo sapien and isn't that defined by a charcteristic set of genes?
Please.

>      But that doesn't say there are extremely small numbers of unwanted
> children.  The ghettos are full of them.  Families living five in two
> rooms.  Women who don't believe in abortion, don't believe in birth
> control are having kids.  Oh by the way, they also don't believe in
> giving up the child after it is born.
> 
>      It's too bad that there are children like that around,  but there
> are.  And many of them were born because abortion was not legal in that
> state, in that time.
> 
Which statement do you want to stick with? What does legality have to do
with the women you mentioned as not believing in abortion? For someone
claiming pro-choice, you seem slanderous toward those that don't choose
abortion.

> Sean L. Gilley  	Phone: (606) 273-6021 or (606) 257-3092
> 
> uucp:	{unmvax,research,boulder,decvax!ucbvax}!anlams!ukma!slg
> 	|| ...cbosgd!ukma!ukma23!slg
> 
> arpa:   "ukma!ukma23!slg"@ANL-MCS

		Mike Johnston