In article ,
Peter Wiley wrote:
Quite analogous I'd say, especially since women were denied the right
to vote.

Yeah - right. A century ago, more or less? We're talking about here &
now. Women now make up over 50% of the population and have full
political rights. Stop hiding and stop pretending women can't exercise
their political power if they choose. It's demeaning & insulting to
women.

Well, quite a bit less than a century, but whatever. They do, but
they're hindered at every turn. Blacks have full political rights
also, but are still being disenfranchised on a regular basis.

Can or should? What about the fetus that would only survive a few
minutes, due to some terrible defect?

Jon, get off it. Over 10 years ago I designed, built & still maintain a
database on newborns, all of whom are screened for treatable and
untreatable genetic disorders. The disorder numbers range from around 1
in 15000 to over 1 in 100000, in the tests that are done. The rarer
disorders aren't screened for because the hit rate is too low.

1 in 100000 means how many actual births that would be enforced? Why
put a woman in that position? What about economic or social reasons?
What about rape victims? Do you know how many pregnancies are a result
of rape? Part of the right-wing agenda is to remove a woman's right to
choose, no matter the reasons. You get off it.

The numbers that fall into the category you're trying to drag in are
infinitesimal. So basically your answer is a copout. you don't want to
face up to the inescapable conclusion so you look for ways to wiggle.

I'm not looking for any ways to wiggle. g The fact is that the gov't
has no business forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term.

Jon, answer this: do you support the right of a woman to abort a 32
week foetus? Yes or no.

Sorry, but it's not quite so simple... it depends on the situation,
something the woman, her diety, and the doctor should decide.

Ah, ok. You're prepared to see a woman abort a baby that could easily
be delivered by c-section or induction and would be completely viable
once delivered, without artificial life support. Got it. There's
another word for that.

Didn't say that. You did. I said "it depends on the situation." If you
can't read, what are you doing here?

Let's try another question. The woman has delivered her baby and
immediately after delivery decides to smother it. Does she have that
right? According to you, she had the right to terminate it a day ago, a
week ago, a month ago..... why not now?

Of course not. That's murder. And, as I said, it should be between
her, her god, and her doctor. I can't predict the situation that would
make it reasonable or unreasonable to terminate the day before she
gives birth. Sorry. But, clearly you can. So tell us? Are there any
situations where she should terminate before giving birth?

Frankly Jon, at that late stage of a pregnancy, it *is* that simple and
all the denialism in the world won't alter it. You're exactly the
obverse of the blanket anti-abortion people and just as morally
bankrupt.

I guess you never heard of partial birth abortions... a very rare
situation, but mostly used to save the life of the woman.

You can call me all the names in the world, but you still can't
justify something that is morally wrong.. namely denying a woman the
right to choose.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."