phillips@uscvax.UUCP (Marlene Phillips) (10/17/85)
I recently had the appalling experience of looking up "birth control" in the local Yellow Pages. Fully 75% of all listings proclaimed "abortions to the 24th week". Is this what is considered birth control these days? (Obviously from the YP listings, some people think it is.) Pro-abortionists who claim that abortion is not intended to be used as birth control have some explaining to do about this, I believe. BTW, for those who believe that abortion after the 7th month is illegal: the last I heard, you can get an abortion ANY TIME if you can get your doctor to agree that it would be physically or _emotionally_ damaging for you to continue the pregnancy. Marlene Phillips
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (10/18/85)
In article <64@uscvax.UUCP> phillips@usc-cse.UUCP (Marlene Phillips) writes: > >I recently had the appalling experience of looking up "birth control" >in the local Yellow Pages. Fully 75% of all listings proclaimed >"abortions to the 24th week". Is this what is considered birth >control these days? (Obviously from the YP listings, some people >think it is.) Pro-abortionists who claim that abortion is not >intended to be used as birth control have some explaining to do >about this, I believe. I am not a pro-abortionist, Marlene, but I will explain this. I picked up a copy of a GTE yellow pages directory and looked up "Abortion". I found the following: Abortion & Abortion Alternatives see Attorneys Birth Control Information Centers Clergy Clinics Social Service Organizations Women's Organizations & Services A copy of a Pacific Bell yellow pages directory had no entry for Abortion at all. It seems that the telephone companies don't want a section listing only abortionists. GTE is even trying to suggest that women contemplating abortion see the Clergy. It sounds like a way the phone companies can allow anti-abortion ads alongside ads for abortion clinics. Think about it. It would be improper to allow an anti-abortion ad in a section headed "Abortion". You shouldn't be so upset. This strategy can only help the anti-abortion counseling groups. A woman seeking an abortion clinic through the telephone directory will also see anti-abortion ads. This gives the anti-abortion counseling centers exposure to the people they want to counsel (that is to people seeking abortions). As for abortion as birth control: it certainly is a radical form of birth control. I don't know of anyone that promotes it in place of contraception. Most people probably do feel that selecting abortion over contraception is repugnant and amoral. From a practical point of view it is stupid for a woman to forego relativly harmless forms of contraception in favor of a more dangerous medical operation. Some pro-abortionists (those that own clinics perhaps) may advocate abortion as an alternative to contraception but they do not represent the pro-choice side. > >BTW, for those who believe that abortion after the 7th month is >illegal: the last I heard, you can get an abortion ANY TIME if >you can get your doctor to agree that it would be physically or >_emotionally_ damaging for you to continue the pregnancy. > > Marlene Phillips Is it unreasonable to allow the medical profession to make medical decisions? I doubt you would say that a woman whose life was physically threatened by birth should be forced to give birth. Why should emotional damage be different from physical damage? If there are physicians that capriciously claim pending emotional harm to justify late abortions they are guilty of malpractice. They can (and should) be stopped under current law. If a fetus is viable outside the mothers body then a caesarian section would probably be a better alternative to abortion. I have no doubt that any physician that performs an abortion on a viable fetus could be found guilty of manslaughter under current law unless there were mitigating circumstances.
phillips@uscvax.UUCP (Marlene Phillips) (10/21/85)
In article <72@uscvax.UUCP> kurtzman@usc-cse.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: >Most people probably do feel that selecting abortion over contraception is >repugnant and amoral. From a practical point of view it is stupid for a >woman to forego relativly harmless forms of contraception in favor of a more >dangerous medical operation. Some pro-abortionists (those that own clinics >perhaps) may advocate abortion as an alternative to contraception but they >do not represent the pro-choice side. It may be stupid for a woman to forego contraception in favor of abortion, but many do it anyway. "I won't get pregnant, and even if I do, I can always have an abortion" is an all too common line of thinking. In addition, you and I both know that abortion can be a dangerous medical operation, but many women who go in for abortions have no idea how dangerous it can be, and the abortion clinics for the most part do not give much information on the very real possible dangers of abortion. >>BTW, for those who believe that abortion after the 7th month is >>illegal: the last I heard, you can get an abortion ANY TIME if >>you can get your doctor to agree that it would be physically or >>_emotionally_ damaging for you to continue the pregnancy. >> > >Is it unreasonable to allow the medical profession to make medical >decisions? I doubt you would say that a woman whose life was physically >threatened by birth should be forced to give birth. Why should emotional >damage be different from physical damage? If there are physicians that >capriciously claim pending emotional harm to justify late abortions they are >guilty of malpractice. They can (and should) be stopped under current law. >If a fetus is viable outside the mothers body then a caesarian section would >probably be a better alternative to abortion. I have no doubt that any >physician that performs an abortion on a viable fetus could be found guilty >of manslaughter under current law unless there were mitigating circumstances. Of course medical professionals should make medical decisions. That does not make the rest of your argument valid. It is (relatively) easy to give medical evidence that a woman's life was physically threatened by childbirth. Emotional damage is another issue. That is a much more subjective problem. And while a physician _could_ be found guilty of malpractice for claiming sufficient emotional harm to justify an abortion where this was in fact not the case, who would prosecute? Certainly not the mother. And if it were not in fact the case that the abortion was justified on emotional grounds, how could that be proved? Finally, even if almost all doctors are ethical enough not to perform late abortions unless truly necessary to save the mother's life, a woman who wants an abortion will find the doctor who will claim "potential emotional damage". Unless it's possible to show that no doctor would perform an unjustified late-term abortion, the danger of abuse of the "emotional damage" argument remains as a problem. Marlene Phillips
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (10/22/85)
In article <102@uscvax.UUCP> phillips@usc-cse.UUCP (Marlene Phillips) writes: >It may be stupid for a woman to forego contraception in favor of abortion, >but many do it anyway. "I won't get pregnant, and even if I do, I can >always have an abortion" is an all too common line of thinking. This sort of problem must be solved through education not banning abortion. > In addition, >you and I both know that abortion can be a dangerous medical operation, >but many women who go in for abortions have no idea how dangerous it can >be, and the abortion clinics for the most part do not give much information >on the very real possible dangers of abortion. > This is an unsubstantiated claim. Besides, this is an issue of medical ethics. Clinics that don't inform people fully of the risks should have their licenses revoked. > >Finally, even if almost all doctors are ethical enough not to >perform late abortions unless truly necessary to save the mother's >life, a woman who wants an abortion will find the doctor who will >claim "potential emotional damage". Unless it's possible to show >that no doctor would perform an unjustified late-term abortion, the >danger of abuse of the "emotional damage" argument remains as a >problem. > > Marlene Phillips Drugs aid doctors in treating their patients. However, there are doctors that dispense drugs haphazardly. Unless its possible to show that no doctor would dispense drugs unjustifiably, all drugs should be banned. This is the same reasoning, Marlene. Does it work in this case? The point is that one does not throw out a medical procedure or form of analysis because there is potential for abuse.