todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (08/09/85)
Challenge to pro-lifers. Assume scenario. Answer numbered questions. Let's don the rose-colored Vuarnets and imagine: Abortion is made illegal in the U.S.A. 1. Now what? What do say to all the women (and fetuses) who die in back alleys from unsterile illegal abortions? How about: "Serves ya' right ya' prevert! don't have sex unless you wanna have a kid!" 2. What do you say to all the overflowing orphanages? How about: "No problem, someone will help you pay the costs. How about Social Security?" 3. What do you say to all the adoption agencies with an abundance of "unadoptable" minority babies? "Be patient, someone will adopt them, sometime, somewhere." 4. So what will happen, guys? Will sexually active types suddenly decide to become "GASP!" responsible? Will everything work out hunky-dory? 5. Do pro-lifers feel obligated to address these points? "We are morally perfect, don't throw your misadventures in our laps!" OKAY ARNDT & COMPANY, FLAME AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ||||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | ~ | |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (08/11/85)
> Challenge to pro-lifers. Assume scenario. Answer numbered questions. > > Let's don the rose-colored Vuarnets and imagine: > > Abortion is made illegal in the U.S.A. > > 1. Now what? What do say to all the women (and fetuses) who die > in back alleys from unsterile illegal abortions? > > How about > "Serves ya' right ya' prevert! don't have sex unless you > wanna have a kid!" Do you feel sorry for would-be murderers who die from botched illegal murders? Or would-be bank robbers who get shot by guards or the police? Women who have abortions and the abortionists who perform the operation are trying to harm someone else. I don't think it's society's duty to make sure that it is safe to do illegal things, especially when they involve harming others. I don't see how the fetuses would lose any more in unsterile illegal abortions than they currently do in legal ones. After all, the point of abortions is to kill fetuses. The only difference between a legal abortion and an illegal one from the fetus's point of view is that society is putting its blessing on the killing in the former case. Can you see any differences between "it's OK for someone to victimize you" and "it's not OK for someone to victimize you"? Yes, and sex carries the risk of pregnancy. But this risk is not caused by any of the stereotyped people you so evidently assume. It is caused by the basic biology of our species. Birth control devices attempt to reduce this risk to zero, but they're not perfect. You're saying "because I don't know how to have sex without risking pregnancy (or getting someone pregnant) and I won't limit my sexual activity, I demand the 'right' to kill the fetus." But you're placing the decision point at the wrong place -- it is possible to avoid pregnancy, although you may have to go without sex to do so -- so you can't say 'I couldn't prevent this pregnancy' -- the pregnancy is a direct result of a CHOICE that you made to have sex. If you can break the cause-and-effect relationship between sex and pregnancy, do so. But it is not fair to say "my right to sex without consequences outweighs someone else's right to live". > 2. What do you say to all the overflowing orphanages? > > How about: > "No problem, someone will help you pay the costs. > How about Social Security? So you're saying that it's acceptable to kill someone for money? Sounds very much like Mafia-style morality to me. > 3. What do you say to all the adoption agencies with an abundance > of "unadoptable" minority babies? > > "Be patient, someone will adopt them, sometime, somewhere." The last article I read on adoption said something to the effect that there was a four-year wait to get white infants and a two-year wait for minority infants. So yes, white babies are more in 'demand', but there doesn't seem to be an overabundance of minority babies. And if there was an overabundance of minority babies, you would recommend killing them all rather than placing them in foster homes? That sounds to me to be *very* racist -- "there's too many of them, let's just kill a few". Given that our society supports welfare for adult human beings, it should *certainly* look after children, who are less able to fend for themselves than adults. > 4. So what will happen, guys? Will sexually active types > suddenly decide to become "GASP!" responsible? Will > everything work out hunky-dory? What will happen? A *lot* less unborn babies will be killed (immediate- danger-to-the-mother and/or rape cases account for a very small fraction of the total number of abortions). This is the point of an anti-abortion law, just as discouraging rapes is the point of an anti-rape law. I don't know about the effects on sexually active types. They may decide to be less active, to be more careful about birth control (using multiple methods probably increases the success rate quite a bit), or to live with the possibility of pregnancies. But they won't be killing unborn babies. > 5. Do pro-lifers feel obligated to address these points? > > "We are morally perfect, don't throw your misadventures in > our laps!" You don't have to be morally perfect to understand the concept of responsibility for one's actions. -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (08/12/85)
> > But you're placing the decision point at the wrong place -- it is possible > to avoid pregnancy, although you may have to go without sex to do so -- so > you can't say 'I couldn't prevent this pregnancy' -- the pregnancy is a > direct result of a CHOICE that you made to have sex. If you can break the > cause-and-effect relationship between sex and pregnancy, do so. But it is > not fair to say "my right to sex without consequences outweighs someone else's > right to live". > What about rape? This is a serious question: do you support abortion in the case of rape? If so, why are those unborn babies different from other unborn babies? If not, then choice has nothing to do with it, nor does responsibility. marie desjardins park
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (08/14/85)
> > > > But you're placing the decision point at the wrong place -- it is possible > > to avoid pregnancy, although you may have to go without sex to do so -- so > > you can't say 'I couldn't prevent this pregnancy' -- the pregnancy is a > > direct result of a CHOICE that you made to have sex. If you can break the > > cause-and-effect relationship between sex and pregnancy, do so. But it is > > not fair to say "my right to sex without consequences outweighs someone > > else's right to live". > What about rape? This is a serious question: do you support abortion > in the case of rape? If so, why are those unborn babies different > from other unborn babies? Pregnancies resulting from rape & incest are a nasty case, since neither the woman or the fetus had any say in creating the situation, and no matter what is done, someone loses. My personal feelings are that in these cases, the fetus should be allowed to live. I realize that this imposes hardship on the rape victim, but going the other way imposes much worse hardship on the child. But I also think that the government should try to reduce the hardship on the woman as much as possible by providing psychiatric counseling, arranging to place the baby for adoption, etc. (the first of these should be supplied to all rape victims). And every convicted rapist should be thrown into prison for a very, very long time (none of this out-in-2-years-to-seek-another-victim stuff). > If not, then choice has nothing to do with it, nor does responsibility. What I'm saying is that it's possible to argue against more than 99 percent of all abortions on BOTH right-to-life and choice/responsibility grounds. And in fact, it seems to be precisely unwanted pregnancies resulting from *voluntary* sex that Todd Jones is concerned about. His post raves on and on; given his outlook, I thought a choice/responsibility argument to be most appropriate. -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
goodrum@unc.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum) (08/20/85)
> >Pregnancies resulting from rape & incest are a nasty case, since neither the >woman or the fetus had any say in creating the situation, and no matter what >is done, someone loses. > Although I consider myself a pretty staunch right-to-lifer, I'm a little more liberal on the matter of pregnancies resulting from rape for this reason. >My personal feelings are that in these cases, the fetus should be allowed to >live. I realize that this imposes hardship on the rape victim, but going the >other way imposes much worse hardship on the child. But I also think that the >government should try to reduce the hardship on the woman as much as possible >by providing psychiatric counseling, arranging to place the baby for adoption, >etc. (the first of these should be supplied to all rape victims). And every >convicted rapist should be thrown into prison for a very, very long time (none >of this out-in-2-years-to-seek-another-victim stuff). > I think there's another measure (taken in addition to everything you mentioned above) that can be taken. Why not confiscate any funds the convicted rapist has and use them to pay for the psychiatric counseling, the medical expenses, and the etcetera??? No matter how they're funded, these services should be offered to rape victims, especially if we're going to require that they not have an abortion. > >What I'm saying is that it's possible to argue against more than 99 percent of >all abortions on BOTH right-to-life and choice/responsibility grounds. And in >fact, it seems to be precisely unwanted pregnancies resulting from *voluntary* >sex that Todd Jones is concerned about. His post raves on and on; given his >outlook, I thought a choice/responsibility argument to be most appropriate. > Absolutely!! Pro-lifers should not be discouraged by the "hard case" arguments that are often presented, even when we disagree on them. > -- Thomas Newton > Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA Cloyd Goodrum III University Of North Carolina