Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: Response to Gary's  (a pro-choicer's mind is changed (slightly))
Message-ID: <676@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Jan-85 18:09:01 EST
Article-I.D.: bunker.676
Posted: Fri Jan 18 18:09:01 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Jan-85 01:54:13 EST
References: <3300@alice.UUCP> <530@mhuxt.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 48

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