>Max,
>
>I'm all for more information on who's getting third-trimester
>abortions and why, but you lose me when you start talking about
>how a proper defense of "womanhood" is rightly a defense of
>the baby in the womb.
>
>The philosophical pro-choice position is that before birth, the
>absolute dependence of the fetus on the body of the woman (for
>nutrients, oxygen, etc.) gives the woman some rights over the
>fetus, rights she would not have over a baby, who is dependent
>only in a much more general social sense. Third-term abortions
>appear more complicated because premature babies can
>sometimes survive with medical assistance, and obviously no-
>one wants to kill babies, nuts like Singer aside. But guess what?
>Even in the third trimester, the fetus isn't outside the womb; it
>still depends absolutely on the physical systems of the mother.
>Therefore, the woman still has the right to determine whether
>or not to continue the pregnancy, though she wouldn't have the
>right to kill a premature baby.
Thanks for this. It helps me clarify the logicial incoherence of what I said in my previous post, when I equivocated on the question of the third-term.
>That's the argument--makes sense to me, but take it or leave it--
>but we all know that women don't get abortions because they've
>developed airtight logical pro-choice arguments. They get them
>because their backs are against the wall. I would imagine that
>this is especially true of third-term abortions. Probably most of
>the people (three or four hundred a year?) getting third-term
>abortions are women with serious medical problems; the "lazy
>and irresponsible" ones are likely to be teenagers who are too
>afraid to admit they're pregnant in time to get an early abortion,
>thanks in no small part to the folks who tell them they'll be
>murderers if they do.
>
>So when you laud the "coherent" Catholic position--which, in
>its divine coherence, extends to contraception as well--what
>exactly are you looking for, Max? Just playing with a new
>argument, or do you take it seriously? More limitations and
>regulations on abortion? An outright ban on third-term
>abortion? A defense of womanhood which puts childbearing
>back front and center, where it oughta be? Or just a little more
>humility from those uppity feminists, a little acknowledgement
>that the fetus counts too? Since you're usually the champion of
>the working class, I'd remind you those middle-class liberal
>NARAL and NOW members who bug you with their bloodless
>talk about the "right to choose" are, by and large, the women
>who, in the ugly old days before Roe vs. Wade, could pay for
>underground abortions--unlike their working-class sisters, who
>are the ones who truly benefit from legal, safe and affordable
>abortion.
>
>Kim Phillips-Fein
>
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com