mjk@tty3b.UUCP (06/28/83)
Hope everyone for Choice is writing / calling / telegraming their U.S. Senators regarding the Constitutional Ammendment on abortion being debated in the Senate. People fought hard and long for Roe vs. Wade, let's not give it up without a fight.
dolan@ihnp1.UUCP (06/30/83)
Regarding the abortion amendment that was recently debated in the Senate: I ask all who are concerned enough to take some stand on abortion to consider the following questions - I am obviously a Pro-Life supporter, but I ask that all concerned individuals consider these questions in an objective manner. They are the crux of the Pro-Life objection to abortion. 1. Is a newly born child a human being? 2. Is a fertilized human egg a human being? 3. If a fertilized human egg is not a human being, when does the developing fetus/child become a human being? What is it that turns a "non-human fetus" into a "human being"? 4. Under what circumstances, if any, does the convenience of one human being override the right to live of another human being? Mike Dolan Bell Labs, Room 1B-226, Naperville, IL 60566 (312) 979-6767 ihnp4!ihnp1!dolan
bch@unc.UUCP (06/30/83)
>>1. Is a newly born child a human being? Yes, provided it does not have birth defects which preclude thought. >>2. Is a fertilized human egg a human being? Absolutely not. >>3. If a fertilized human egg is not a human being, when does the >> developing fetus/child become a human being? What is it that >> turns a "non-human fetus" into a "human being"? If you will permit, I will replace your scenario with one that is less emotionally loaded in order to answer your question: There is currently a minor move afoot to allow children to vote. Your questions, moved to that scenario become: 1. Is an adult (18 years or older these days) old enough to vote? 2. Is a newly born infant old enough to vote? 3. If a newly born infant is not old enough to vote, when does the developing child become old enough to vote? What is it that turns a child into an adult. The answer is a number of events, none of which by itself is indicative but all of which can be summarized by "time." We pick a particular age arbitrarily and say that a person can be considered responsible enough to be an adult when they reach that demarcation point. The age is decided by the courts with the advice and counsel of experts. This is thoroughly in line with recent court decisions on abortion which specify a term of pregnancy beyond which abortion is illegal. >>4. Under what circumstances, if any, does the convenience of one >> human being override the right to live of another human being? None that I know of. As to what constitutes a human being, that is a matter of personal choice within the constraints of our legal system. Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill
brf@machaids.UUCP (07/01/83)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: CHOICE and the Senate
References: <192@ihnp1.UUCP>
Subtitle: We Ride the Slippery Slope Again!
Seriously, you raise valid moral questions, but unfortunately
they have nothing to do with the recent Senate debate.
The real question should be:
Is this an issue to be settled by the U. S. Senate?
I don't think there is any valid argument for the Government
to be interfering in the private decisions of women.
An anti-abortion amendment would make Probition look like
kids play. Why make potential outlaws out of 51% of the population?
Bruce Fowler {houx*}!machaids!brf
Bell Telephone Laboratories, Room HO 2B-319
Crawfords Corner Rd., Holmdel, N.J. 07733
Work Phone: (201)949-3677 or 8-233-3677brf@machaids.UUCP (07/01/83)
Subtitle: We Ride the Slippery Slope Again!
Seriously, you raise valid moral questions, but unfortunately
they have nothing to do with the recent Senate debate.
The real question should be:
Is this an issue to be settled by the U. S. Senate?
I don't think there is any valid argument for the Government
to be interfering in the private decisions of women.
An anti-abortion amendment would make Probition look like
kids play. Why make potential outlaws out of 51% of the population?
Bruce Fowler {houx*}!machaids!brf
Bell Telephone Laboratories, Room HO 2B-319
Crawfords Corner Rd., Holmdel, N.J. 07733
Work Phone: (201)949-3677 or 8-233-3677jim@grkermit.UUCP (Jim Morton) (07/01/83)
when considering Dolan's points, also bear these in mind:
1) should a child that is NOT WANTED be brought into this world
and go through hell and back, beating, disregard, abandonment,
etc...??
2) why shouldn't a women have legal control over her own body?
3) why should we make abortion illegal and inflict (possibly
permanent) trauma on young girls and their parents?
4) what's going to happen to these unwanted births when the parents
have enough income to just barely scrape by for themselves, let
alone a child.
lastly...
5) how would YOU like to have been an unwanted birth?? Think about
your outlook on the world...
just a few points to ponder, I'm sure we could all pound this one
into the ground (and disk[s]) around the country...
--
Jim Morton GenRad Inc., Concord, Mass. {...decvax!genrad!grkermit!jim}liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/02/83)
From grkermit!jim when considering Dolan's points, also bear these in mind: 1) should a child that is NOT WANTED be brought into this world and go through hell and back, beating, disregard, abandonment, etc...?? It turns out that child-abuse has gone >up< not down since abortion was legalized. And there are many couples that want to adopt and can't. (Although it is true that adoption is not an acceptable option for many women with unwanted pregnancies.) 2) why shouldn't a women have legal control over her own body? She should -- up to the point that it interferes with someone else's rights -- the fetus's right to live. 3) why should we make abortion illegal and inflict (possibly permanent) trauma on young girls and their parents? I work for a place called the Pregnancy Aid Center which is near the Univ of Maryland in College Park. We've found that abortion itself is a traumatic experience, and that it can cause psychological suffering years down the road. 4) what's going to happen to these unwanted births when the parents have enough income to just barely scrape by for themselves, let alone a child. I've met couples in just this situation at the PAC. It's not that they don't want the child... We try to help them by trying to find them jobs, teaching them about birth control for the future, pointing them towards reduced fee maternity programs... 5) how would YOU like to have been an unwanted birth?? Think about your outlook on the world... How would YOU like to have been aborted? You wouldn't have an outlook on the world... There are a lot of problems, and I do sympathize, but I don't think abortion is really the best answer. At the PAC, we are pro-life which means not only being for the life of the child but also the woman or girl the unwanted pregnancy. This means counseling and helping her through a very difficult time in her life. This includes helping her decide what she will do (abort the child, keep the child, or give the child up for adoption), helping her to relate to her parents and her boyfriend or husband... This is all very hard, very emotional and can be very traumatic. just a few points to ponder, I'm sure we could all pound this one into the ground (and disk[s]) around the country... Yes, I'm sure we could... It's not an easy question to answer, and there's lots of problems to solve. -Liz Allen
dwl@hou5e.UUCP (07/03/83)
To the pro-life contingent: The current state of the art in birth control is such that there is no non-permanent technique that is more than about 97% effective. In other words, using the best-available UUUUUU
dwl@hou5e.UUCP (07/03/83)
Sorry, my 212 went into auto test in the middle of posting this article. Lets hope it works better this time... To the pro-life contingent: The current state of the art of birth control is that no non-permanent method is more than about 97% effective. In other words, even using the most effective non-permanent birth control methods available, a couple takes at least a 3% chance of an unintended conception. I seriously doubt that anyone really wants to have an abortion. But if an abortion is possible, and legal, as a backup technique to cover the 3% gap in other types of birth control, then it should remain possible and legal. The alternative is to force couples who do not wish to become parents to take a 3% chance of becoming parents against their wishes. Such a level of interference in our private lives by our government should be totally unacceptable. -Dave Levenson -ABI Holmdel
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (07/03/83)
The argument against abortion, "How would you have liked it if you had been aborted?" is silly. I could use the same argument to show that everyone should have sex continually without birth control to bring into the world all the people who otherwise would never be conceived. "How would you have liked it if you hadn't been conceived? Stop birth control now! Have sex now! Prevention of conception is murder!!!" Doug Alan decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!nessus Nessus@MIT-MC
tim@unc.UUCP (07/04/83)
How would YOU like to have been an
unwanted birth?? Think about your
outlook on the world...
How would YOU like to have been aborted? You
wouldn't have an outlook on the world...
This is a really dumb statement; sorry, Liz, but it is. The best
comeback to it I ever heard was on Phil Donahue -- an anti-choice nun
asked a pro-choice woman in the audience the standard question, "Where
would you be if YOUR mother had had an abortion?" The woman answered,
"The same place I'd be if she'd become a nun."
The same can be said if the mother had had a headache that night,
or if a sperm with a different half-nucleus had been a little faster.
There is absolutely no justification for this sort of silly argument.
Again, my position is that since the fetus is not known to have a
human soul, spirit, will, or what have you, there can be no
justification for the infringement of the woman's right to choose,
since she IS known to have the soul or whatever. If you don't believe
in the "soul", of course, this is irrelevant, but in that case it is
simply a matter of societal convenience, and there is no reason to
have the legislation restrict the woman.
______________________________________
The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney
duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillleichter@yale-com.UUCP (Jerry Leichter) (07/04/83)
Re: "How would you like to have been aborted" Doug Alan's response is absolutely correct - and applies as well to the argument: Think how many Einsteins may have been aborted today. Just think how many more Einsteins were not even conceived because of all those non-pregnant women out there! Let's make it a Federal crime for any woman who is capable of it to NOT be pregnant! -- Jerry
franka@tekcad.UUCP (07/05/83)
#R:tty3b:-14500:tekcad:22000004:000:409 tekcad!franka Jul 4 11:09:00 1983 Oh no, oh no, oh no, oh no, oh no!!! Here we go again! And just three months ago we had had enough of the abortion debate! How about moving to net.flame (where they are discussing everything from AAP's to the speed limit)? Please, please, please don't let this newsgroup become cluttered up with this discussion again. Thanks in advance, Frank Adrian (decvax|ucbvax|pur-ee)!teklabs!tekcad!franka
rcp@rti.UUCP (07/06/83)
;;; Some comments on:
From: mcnc!duke!decvax!genrad!grkermit!jim Fri, 1-Jul-83 09:08:43 EDT
(grkermit.470) net.women,net.politics : Re: CHOICE and the Senate
when considering Dolan's points, also bear these in mind:
1) should a child that is NOT WANTED be brought into this world
and go through hell and back, beating, disregard, abandonment,
etc...??
;;; There are two points that I would like to bring up here:
;;; * There is another alternative to keep from bringing unwanted
;;; children into the world - birth control.
;;; * Many children who were wanted at birth end up going through
;;; hell and back anyway. Should we allow parents the right to
;;; kill their children if they decide that the birth was a mistake?
2) why shouldn't a women have legal control over her own body?
;;; We should all have legal control over our own bodies subject to
;;; the limitation that we do not violate others rights. Is the
;;; mothers right to avoid the discomfort of pregnancy more important
;;; than the childs right to live? Remember that in most cases the
;;; mother has the option of birth control if she wishes to avoid
;;; pregnancy.
3) why should we make abortion illegal and inflict (possibly
permanent) trauma on young girls and their parents?
;;; Any law inflicts trauma on those who break it. The question is
;;; are the social consequences of the act undesirable (immoral) and
;;; are there reasonable ways to avoid the breaking of this law (birth
;;; control, adoption, ...). If a young man steals a car and runs
;;; over a child; it will be very traumatic for him to be caught and
;;; punished. This is no reason for auto theft or hit-and-run not to
;;; be illegal.
4) what's going to happen to these unwanted births when the parents
have enough income to just barely scrape by for themselves, let
alone a child.
;;; Lets think about those unwanted poor of the world who have such a
;;; poor quality of life. Do we start atom bombing India and Biafra
;;; not to mention some of our own urban ghettos ... to improve the
;;; quality of life in the world.
lastly...
5) how would YOU like to have been an unwanted birth?? Think about
your outlook on the world...
;;; Noone likes to be unwanted or unloved. The obvious choice is suicide
;;; if things are that bad. My impression is that few people make that
;;; choice and of those that do many are from well-to-do families whose
;;; quality of life in the material sense should be very good.
just a few points to ponder, I'm sure we could all pound this one
into the ground (and disk[s]) around the country...
--
Jim Morton GenRad Inc., Concord, Mass. {...decvax!genrad!grkermit!jim}
;;; Anyway I don't want to pound this into the ground either, but I thought
;;; I might have something to say. As a father of three strong and
;;; clever little girls, I believe very strongly in the rights and
;;; equality of women. Some of our girls were not born at convenient
;;; times, but the decision to love and care for them is one that I gladly
;;; make every day for all of them. With the same parents and home
;;; environment each of them is so totally unique in their personality
;;; and gifts that I am amazed. I know that abortion is a response
;;; to real social needs and problems. However, I believe that more
;;; humane and less brutalizing to the human spirit solutions can be
;;; found.
Rob Pettengilltower@inmet.UUCP (07/08/83)
#R:tty3b:-14500:inmet:10900007:000:330 inmet!tower Jul 5 19:20:00 1983 Re: child abuse going up. Could we have a reference please? As I understand it, the system has become better at detecting and counting child abuse cases, so the statistics are showing more. I haven't seen anything reliable about % of non-reported cases over the years. -len tower harpo!inmet!tower Cambridge, MA
larry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (07/11/83)
From: rcp@rti.UUCP ;;; We should all have legal control over our own bodies subject to ;;; the limitation that we do not violate others rights. Is the ;;; mothers right to avoid the discomfort of pregnancy more important ;;; than the childs right to live? Remember that in most cases the ;;; mother has the option of birth control if she wishes to avoid ;;; pregnancy. Fine, if the mother does not want to take care of her fetus, remove it from her care and make it a ward of the state. Of course that can't happen can it? You can remove a fetus from a womb and make it a ward of the state because it is not a human being, and cannot survive outside of the womb. No law in this country requires ANYBODY to keep anybody else alive. All it says is that if a person normally responsible for keeping someone alive renegs on that responiblity, they lose both the responibility and the priveleges associated with it. Thus, if a mother no longer wishes to care for the fetus, she loses the privelege and responibility to care for it. But until they figure out a way for someone else to care for it, abortion is the only solution. Finally, Unless you would allow abortions in case of uncontrolable pregnancy, then what is the point of your last sentence. And if you would than your murder argument is wrong. -- Larry Kolodney #13 (I try harder) (USENET) decvax!genrad!grkermit!larry allegra!linus!genrad!grkermit!larry harpo!eagle!mit-vax!grkermit!larry (ARPA) rms.g.lkk@mit-ai