mn@dscvax2.UUCP (Matt Noah) (05/31/85)
Overpopulation means to me to mean having too many mouths to feed with the food we have. I certainly feel that all people should have adequate shelter, nutrition and medical attention as well. I also think we - all members of this planet - need to become better neighbors to one another; more loving and more giving. So, how is it that we can provide qualified physicians with a sanitary environment for the poor of this world having abortions? An abortion is an expensive medical procedure. Many indigent people of this world would balk at the idea of aborting a child because that child would be the one to take care of the parents in their old age. Even if only 30% of the children of a country survive, the people see this as a necessary price to pay for survival. Abortion would not solve this problem, only worsen it. Broad economic reforms, agricultural reform and industrialization would go far where abortion would worsen their quality of life. Regardless, I feel more concerned about abortion in this country at present because it is something I can more greatly affect. Abortion about the earth will have to be put aside for now. Overpopulation then becomes a less salient issue because we are now discussing abortion in America. > Starting at the end of his posting, he completely ignored the > overpopulation issue. The United States is not overpopulated, > but most of the rest of the world (the Third and Fourth World > in particular) is. I am rather tired of the ignorant tirade of propaganda which states that pro-lifers are not concerned with children after they are born. Any statement to the contrary would be understated. The fact that you could find a pro-lifer who is a Jew-hating, cross-burning card-carrying member of the KKK does not argue with my assertion for there is surely a pro-choicer with the same attributes. Let us argue with the assumption of a rational, common woman or man. > In other words, I care about the children who are already born. > As pointed out in "The New Our Bodies, Ourselves", many (but > certainly not all) pro-lifers are only interested in preventing > a woman from having aabortion. Once her child is born, it > doesn't matter that it might be hungry, or abused, or anything > else. They are only concerned with keeping that woman from > making a responsible choice about the fate of her unwanted > child. Fifteen years ago abortion was illegal. You could still have an abortion. Making something legal does not make it right and my observations of the adult population in this country indicates a great deal of rationalization. Alot of us have disdained the notion of right and wrong in favor of personal liberty without personal responsibility. What are the right vs. wrong issues in the abortion controversy? When do you feel a person's rights come into existence? If you wanted the child you or your spouse were bearing, would the child's rights - something society gives us because of our personhood - come into being at 1) conception, 2) at the conclusion of a pregnancy test, 3) the first kick, 4) the first brainwave, 5) the first time the child is wanted, 6) birth, 7) the instant the parents have enough money to sustain the child in a suitable standard of living ...? Our legal system is based on justice; a concept of right and wrong, of morality. All laws are legislated morality. If it were not for the fact that a human being were involved, abortion might just be a woman's issue, a woman's choice. > Right now, > however, I'd get an abortion if I was pregnant. That is my > choice, not yours, or "god's". > To be continued.... > ann muir-thomas Speaking for myself and for those who can't. Matt Noah
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (06/13/85)
> > Starting at the end of his posting, he completely ignored the > > overpopulation issue. The United States is not overpopulated, > > but most of the rest of the world (the Third and Fourth World > > in particular) is. > Let the rest of the world decide for themselves whether they are overpopulated or not. When children are the only security against old age their parents have, they become a necessity. Overpopulation is a consequence of poverty, not a cause. > in the abortion controversy? When do you feel a person's rights > come into existence? If you wanted the child you or your spouse > were bearing, would the child's rights - something society gives > us because of our personhood - come into being at 1) conception, > 2) at the conclusion of a pregnancy test, 3) the first kick, 4) > the first brainwave, 5) the first time the child is wanted, 6) > birth, 7) the instant the parents have enough money to sustain > the child in a suitable standard of living ...? I think 5) or 6) are very reasonnable cutoff points. 5) probably makes sense due to the hypothetical nature of the exact consciousness of embryos. Parents who want a child often assume that it is a person when it is already an embryo, and parents who don't want one often assume the contrary. I think this whole issue is not a question of WHEN a person's right come into existence, but of balancing one person's right against another. If for some reason a full grown person managed to crawl into another person's body, and the only way to get him/her out was to kill him/her, I certainly would ibe of the opinion that the rights of the person whose body was invaded would override the rights of the other person to live and would certainly not find it immoral if the containing person decided to kill the contained person. The only differences between this case and abortion are that 1/ fetuses are more cute than full-grown people, and (more seriously) their state of development is not as advanced, so discussion can focus on their development rather than on balancing rights as would be more appropriate. 2/ fetuses have no choice on whether or not they can crawl into other people's bodies. 3/ women have some amount of control over whether fetuses can appear in their bodies, but even though this control is not absolute, this fact can serve as fuel to pro-life forces which will assume that it is absolute and will instead focus on the mother's "responsibility". -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie