Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rutgers!princeton!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!houem!marty1
From: marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: 2-year-olds vs fetuses-survival
Message-ID: <660@houem.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 11-Oct-86 12:08:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: houem.660
Posted: Sat Oct 11 12:08:35 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 07:06:38 EDT
References: <Garble-garble> <648@houem.UUCP> <1233@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> <652@houem.UUCP> <1242@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 51

In <1242@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>, melissa@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Melissa
Silvestre) asked for other views, but also seemed to ask me a question:

>In article <652@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes:
>>
>>I still think viability outside the mother's body is a criterion for
>>personhood.  If the fetus can be transplanted, that means the mother
>>can refuse responsibility for it without killing it, and then the state
>>can protect it without violating its mother's freedom.
>
>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).
...
>What if a $50 operation = abortion (kills it) but a certain $100,000
>procedure can keep it alive at exactly the same stage? 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? Can we as taxpayers afford for the State to pay for
>such expensive medical procedures?

I would not force you to beggar yourself.  My reasoning is similar to
that involved in the care of the terminally ill.  Preserving life is a
fine thing, but our society simply can't afford to preserve all life at
all costs.  The way we go about it, we lose the lives of people who
live in such conditions that they never reach a hospital, and spend
fantastic resources on people who do get in.  I think that's a mistake.

I consider myself to be a pragmatist, hence not absolutist.  A
pragmatist says (oversimplified) if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but
if it don't work, you can't convince me it's right.

If a destructive abortion costs $50 and a nondestructive removal can be
done for $50 more, and a recipient woman is ready and waiting, the
state might well be entitled to tax you the extra $50.  But a system
that would force you to spend an extra $100,000 to preserve something
you could recreate as recreation would be what I call broke.

But as I said before, once the mother is rid of her fetus, the public
interest takes over.  She gets the child if she wants to care for it,
but not if she wants to kill it.  If you want to practice eugenics you
can make your choices privately.  But as soon as the state has a
reasonable (and compelling a woman to complete pregnancy, or spend
$100,000, is not what I call reasonable) chance to participate in the
determination of what human material shall live and what shall die, I
want the state to choose life by law.

M. B. Brilliant					Marty
AT&T-BL HO 3D-520	(201)-949-1858
Holmdel, NJ 07733	ihnp4!houem!marty1