Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cylixd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!akgub!cylixd!charli
From: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Some Doctors agree with Arndt, . . . Gosh!
Message-ID: <197@cylixd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Aug-85 10:27:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: cylixd.197
Posted: Tue Aug 20 10:27:24 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 15:42:51 EDT
References: <3658@decwrl.UUCP> <1097@ihlpg.UUCP>
Reply-To: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips)
Organization: RCA Cylix Communications , Memphis, TN
Lines: 69
Summary: 

In article <1097@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes:

>In my opinion, we have a classic case of a choice of the lesser of two evils:
>1)the destruction of an embryo
>2)an unwanted pregnancy

Exactly.  An abortion is not a good thing.  Neither is an unwanted 
pregnancy.  But when you don't want to be pregnant and you take the 
precautions to prevent pregnancy, or don't take them out of ignorance,
or are denied the opportunity, and you get pregnant anyway (or your wife
does, or your daughter), what do you do? 

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that it depends on why you don't 
want to be pregnant.

I would consider an abortion an acceptable alternative only if the
pregnancy put my life in danger.  I do not, however, expect everyone
to accept my way of life.  I do expect that, as reasonable, intelligent,
and mature adults, (we are, aren't we? :-) ) we can reach a consensus 
of sorts.

I would propose the following guidelines for the acceptability of
abortion.  Note, please, that they are not my personal guidelines.
They are guidelines that I think would be widely (though not universally)
acceptable.  If you don't like them, note (without shouting, please!)
*why* you disagree.  Be reasonable.  You might persuade me (or some 
other reasonable person) to change.

Abortions are not acceptable:
	- for any reason, if there is a reasonable chance that the
	  fetus, if delivered, would survive (i.e., last trimester).
	  If the woman wishes to terminate the pregnancy during this 
	  time, she could have a competent physician induce delivery
	  (by C-section, or whatever).  The infant should then receive
	  the same medical care as any other premature infant.  If the
	  mother does not want the child, it can be put up for adoption
	  or placed in foster care.  
	  Justification:  it seems unreasonable to destroy a fetus if
	  you could nearly as easily allow it to survive
	- if the only reason for the abortion is that the child may be
	  handicapped.  Again, if the mother does not want the child,
	  it can be put up for adoption or placed in foster care.
	  Justification:  I'm afraid of the logical extensions of a
	  policy that allows the abortion of handicapped fetuses -
	  the killing of handicapped newborns follows (and has already
	  begun), and I see no logical or reasonable end.

Abortions are acceptable:
	- if the pregnancy endangers the mother's life or long-term
	  health 
	  Justification:  it seems reasonable to take a life in order
	  to save a life
	- if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest
	  Justification:  I have none, but rape and incest seem to be
	  widely considered special cases, and I believe it would be
	  impossible to gain a consensus without including this
	- before the fetus's central nervous system begins to function
	  Justification: when a person's brain ceases to function, we 
	  consider them to be dead.  It seems reasonable, therefore,
	  that when a fetus's brain begins to function, we would
	  consider it alive.

This is certainly not an all-inclusive list of possibilities.  It
includes only those which I believe are suitable for a theoretical
discussion (i.e., which are reasonably unambiguous and which seem 
possible to reach a consensus on).  If anyone would like to add to
either list (again, giving reasonable justification), please do.

		charli