slg@ukma.UUCP (Sean Gilley) (05/10/85)
I've been reading this group off and on for about eight
months now, and until now have not posted anything to this
group. But the following discourse is one I just couldn't
let pass by.
But before I start talking about other postings, I felt
it only fair to state my position.
I suppose it could be said that I am pro-choice,
though I don't truely believe in that label. I believe that
abortion is not morally wrong the way is is currently prac-
ticed, and I believe that women should make their own
choice as to whether they want an abortion... Ultimately it
is up to the women. Which isn't to say I would want my
girlfriend to have an abortion -- I wouldn't, I would in
fact do all I could to talk her out of it given the
chance... but it is still ultimatly her decision.
On the other hand, I advocate non-violence and am for
preserving life in it's many wonderful forms. More simply
stated I believe it is wrong to kill another living self-
aware being. (I think that more or less covers it..)
Now how do I reconcile these seemingly opposite
viewpoints? I do and always have believed it is wrong to
abort a fetus *IF* it is at the point where it could live
outside the mothers body without any extranormal support
facilities. Certainly within the first couple of months
this is not the case. After six it is very questionable.
So what do we do? We put an arbitrary limit on the amount
of time a women can carry a sometime to be baby and still
have an abortion.
I don't believe in abortion as a means of birth con-
trol, but to try and seperate the women who use abortion
that way and women who have one abortion in their lifetime,
and then allow one but not the other to have an abortion is
not a feasable posibility. So we end up with some who abuse
the priveledge, like in everything else.
One of the articles I read said something about a fetus
being human. It is not human. It is simply an organism
that may someday become human. We don't hold funeral ser-
vices for the three inch miscarried fetus.. The miscarraige
happens, The dead carcass is dispossed of in some manner,
often down the toilet, we think nothing, or little of it and
a day or two later all is more or less forgotten.
>> is Ann Muir Thomas
> is carlton@masscomp; signed as Alana Hommel
>>If *I* had an unwnated child,
>>would *YOU* adopt it, or say, sorry you little slut, it's
>>all your fault.
>This is the worst sort of juvenile crap I have seen in net.abortion during
>five months of reading drivel. Not once in two years of working in pro-life
>groups have I heard anyone on either side of the debate make derogatory remarks
>about the morality of the young women dealing with an unplanned pregnancy.
>There are only two places where this sort of evil badgering takes place -
>among the lunatic fringe of the pro-life group, and in the minds of many
>pro-choicers.
I won't say I've heard these women called sluts.. but I have, quite
often, heard remarks such as "You made your bed, now lie in it." Is that
the "lunatic" fringe talking? I somehow doubt it.
>> Men, if you really believe that there is plenty
>>of space for unwanted children, put your money where
>>your mouth is. And don't forget that this planet *IS*
>>approaching its capacity for supporting life.
>This is sheer balderdash. The average wait to adopt in the US is seven years.
>(See the recent articles by mel@ahuta.UUCP (m.haas) about their adoption
>of David in net.kids.) You sound like the doomsayers in The Club of Rome.
What does the wait time for an adoptee have to do with the earth's
ability to support life? Yes, it does take a while to adopt an infant,
but unless the situation where you live is drastically different than
here, the wait to adopt an older child is almost non-existant.
But that doesn't say there are extremely small numbers of unwanted
children. The ghettos are full of them. Families living five in two
rooms. Women who don't believe in abortion, don't believe in birth
control are having kids. Oh by the way, they also don't believe in
giving up the child after it is born.
>You seem to be trying to justify a decision *you* might make (or have made)
>because of your particular health concerns. But anyone at Reed cannot be
>that badly off. You seem willing to practice eugenics on a child/fetus
>of yours - are you willing to to kill yourself, or submit to sterilization?
Are you willing to take the child after it is born, raise him or her,
give the child a good stable home?
How many foster children have you taken in? To help give a better
life to, how many have you given any time to, any emotional support
to, to show them and help them believe that they can make a good life
out of what they've been given.
It's too bad that there are children like that around, but there
are. And many of them were born because abortion was not legal in that
state, in that time.
--
--
-=<>=-
Sean L. Gilley Phone: (606) 273-6021 or (606) 257-3092
uucp: {unmvax,research,boulder,decvax!ucbvax}!anlams!ukma!slg
|| ...cbosgd!ukma!ukma23!slg
arpa: "ukma!ukma23!slg"@ANL-MCS
Of all forms of caution, caution in love is the most fatal.johnston@spp1.UUCP (Micheal L. Johnston) (05/14/85)
> > Now how do I reconcile these seemingly opposite > viewpoints? I do and always have believed it is wrong to > abort a fetus *IF* it is at the point where it could live > outside the mothers body without any extranormal support > facilities. Certainly within the first couple of months > this is not the case. After six it is very questionable. > So what do we do? We put an arbitrary limit on the amount > of time a women can carry a sometime to be baby and still > have an abortion. Are incubators "extranormal". What's your decision on pre-mature babies? It seems that would have the same rights ( or lack of in this case) as a fetus at the same gestation in utero. And what's this limit. Do I have to send someone else back to really read the supreme court decision of '73? It is legal to abort up the point of natural birth. And if there were a limit, how long would it be valid with advances in neonatology? > > I don't believe in abortion as a means of birth con- > trol, but to try and seperate the women who use abortion > that way and women who have one abortion in their lifetime, > and then allow one but not the other to have an abortion is > not a feasable posibility. So we end up with some who abuse > the priveledge, like in everything else. But at what cost? > > One of the articles I read said something about a fetus > being human. It is not human. It is simply an organism > that may someday become human. Is this like evolution? What are the qualifications for admittance to the species. I hope I've made it. Is your definiton of a human a member of the species homo sapien and isn't that defined by a charcteristic set of genes? Please. > But that doesn't say there are extremely small numbers of unwanted > children. The ghettos are full of them. Families living five in two > rooms. Women who don't believe in abortion, don't believe in birth > control are having kids. Oh by the way, they also don't believe in > giving up the child after it is born. > > It's too bad that there are children like that around, but there > are. And many of them were born because abortion was not legal in that > state, in that time. > Which statement do you want to stick with? What does legality have to do with the women you mentioned as not believing in abortion? For someone claiming pro-choice, you seem slanderous toward those that don't choose abortion. > Sean L. Gilley Phone: (606) 273-6021 or (606) 257-3092 > > uucp: {unmvax,research,boulder,decvax!ucbvax}!anlams!ukma!slg > || ...cbosgd!ukma!ukma23!slg > > arpa: "ukma!ukma23!slg"@ANL-MCS Mike Johnston
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (05/19/85)
> > > > One of the articles I read said something about a fetus > > being human. It is not human. It is simply an organism > > that may someday become human. > > Is this like evolution? What are the qualifications for admittance to the > species. I hope I've made it. Is your definiton of a human a member of the > species homo sapien and isn't that defined by a charcteristic set of genes? > Please. Sure, fetuses are human, but so are nails, hair, etc... I amnot trying to compare fetuses to nails, but just trying to point out that the term "human" is a very general one. It is not because something is human that it is wrong to destroy it. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie