Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights Message-ID: <1703@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sun, 15-Sep-85 20:57:13 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1703 Posted: Sun Sep 15 20:57:13 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 16-Sep-85 03:16:03 EDT References: <436@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1631@pyuxd.UUCP> <1260@brl-tgr.ARPA> <316@rruxo.UUCP> <1473@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 73 > For readers new to net.abortion, there are some who say a fetus is not > a human life because it could not live on its own. Others, including > me, believe that it's not important whether it could live on its own, > it's human anyway. [ROSENBLATT] Some people may say that rocks are human, and that the fact that they share little in common with humans is "not important, they're human anyway". What an amazing new way to reach conclusions: assume the conclusion to be correct, and ignore anything that stands in the way of doing that. ("new"?) >>> Mr. Rosen seems to think it's better to risk the death of the seven-month >>> fetus (or to ensure its quick death with an abortion, if unwanted) >>> than to burden the pregnant woman with an additional two months >>> of pregnancy. Mr. Newton does not, and neither do I. [M. ROSENBLATT] >>First of all, I never said that I held this position, which you tar me with >>in a most malicious manner. What I *did* say is that if YOU truly believe >>this position, then you should carry it through to its logical conclusion. >>[R. ROSEN] > Rather than rely on me to "tar" Mr. Rosen with holding any position, let him > state what his position is himself. I think that saying "what I did say was...", and following it with an explanation, IS in fact stating my position. You may choose to quote the word "tar" if you like, Matt, nonetheless it is appropriate based on the way you deliberately attributed something to me that was false, in order to deceptively win points in this argument. Saying that I should state my position myself, when in fact I already had, is another example of this. > Suppose a woman is seven months pregnant and does not want to continue being > pregnant. Does she have the right to risk the death of the fetus by removing > it from her body? Does she have the right to ensure its quick death with an > abortion? Is abortion at seven months even remotely within the scope of the law allowing abortions? A vacuous straw man of the shoddiest kind. >>When I studied such things as neonatal research (as a sub-topic in a course), >>"although not to 100%" was a hell of an understatement. When the doctors >>were able to get a 30% survival rate (at the end of the second trimester), >>they were overjoyed. (prevoiusly, the survival rate was less than 3%) >>Any premature baby born before the start of the third trimester are not yet >>fully developed. (In the third trimester, the fetus is complete and simply >>gaining size and weight, no more development occurs) If a child is born >>before the third trimester, it's as good as dead. I belive that the survival >>rate of secord-trimester babies was less than 1%. [VINCE HATEM] > OK. The second trimester ends at the end of the sixth month of gestation, > which is the beginning of the seventh month. "Although not to 100%" was > referring to a seven-month fetus, i.e., one at the end of the seventh month. > All I said was that most of these do survive. If Mr. Hatem says the survival > rate of second-trimester babies is "less than 1%," is he referring to the > overall rate for everyone born between the end of the third month and the > end of the sixth month, or the rate for those born at the end of the sixth > month? If he is including spontaneous abortions during the first half of > the second trimester, of course he will get a very low survival rate. > However, a 30% survival rate at the end of the second trimester (i.e., the > end of the sixth month) means that if the doctors try to save a six-month > fetus, there is a 30% chance it will live. Abortion, legal through the > end of the sixth month, usually ensures that the fetus will die (although > sometimes the doctors botch it and the damned nuisance lives anyway). So > in at least some cases, whether the fetus lives or dies is determined by > its mother's wishes. That kind of life-and-death power is what is > unacceptable to me. It is apparent that Mr. Rosenblatt is out to slowly but surely stretch the truth until it all fits in with his position. "OK, we *were* talking about seventh month fetuses, let's go back a month and assume the same thing. And again, and again... Until it is 'clear' that abortion is wrong." -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com