regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (04/30/85)
answers to Paul Dubuc's postings: >>> CBS conceded that its "neutral" panel of experts >>> was proposed--at least in part--by the American >>> College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. >>>Is the ACOG "uninvolved in the abortion controversy"? >>Paul, who would you like as the resident "experts in fetal development" -- >>the local blacksmiths? (sarcasm deleted, since we've decided not to throw stones) > When CBS designated its panel as "uninvolved >in the abortion controversy" one might expect them to be fetologists who are >not, nor have they ever been, abortionists. Nor would one expect them to be >recommended by an organization that has been politically or legally involved >in abortion advocacy. Come now, be a little more reasonable. You knew that >was the whole point, didn't you? Yes/no/maybe. Your posting noted that the panel "...in part..." is involved the ACOG. That's not in toto. Also, fetologists unacquainted with abortion may not have the same information that fetologists who have been acquainted with abortion have. I'd be curious how much time the "experts" actually spend in practice, and how much in research, how much their viewpoints are affected by their work and how much by their morality. A membership in a professional organization does not a radical make. ------------------------------------------------------------- From another posting by Paul Dubuc -- Thank you for your summary of your stance. I think now we can jump over some of the rhetoric. Your views on abortion seem remarkably consistant (remarkable respective to numerous other arguments I've heard). It makes far more sense to me that IF one is opposed to abortion on the basis of the taking of a life, THEN one must also be opposed to abortion in the extreme cases (rape, incest) because it is still the taking of a life. (Mothers-life-endangered is one of those loaded issues. There are times when the obvious answer is yes, and other times when the answer is not so obvious {wishes of the mother herself, for instance}). So, our difference of opinion is the fundamental difference of "is a fetus a life, or isn't it, and if it is, when does it gain that status?" Very simple, really. We disagree, but I can accept the validity of your stance (if I haven't distorted it yet again). Now, a question arises of -- since we disagree, (as the two opposing sides do), one of us will find that the laws of the country do not reflect his/er belief. What do we do when our belief is the unsupported belief? Numerous people have indicated they have some interest in various pro-life and pro-choice groups, which would indicate some political body that operates within the laws of the country. That, too, is respectable. What to do about the lawless (on either side of the issue)? Specific comments: Re the social reality of women-as-sole-parent, Paul writes: >I would venture to say that the availability of abortion might have >contributed a good deal to this situation. Instead of balancing the >inequity by holding men more responsible for the children they help >conceive, pro-choice folks fought for the right to abortion to make women >more independent. (The right to "control their bodies" and all that). >This new independence places all the burden of child bearing on the women. >It also lets men be irresponsible. If a woman gets pregnant, the man >could feel more justified in leaving her on her own, since she can >get an abortion. Abortion has helped insure that more of the burden >of parenting is placed on the mother. Unfortunately, this is a chicken-of-the-egg argument. Which occurred as a result of which is a little hard to determine -- both occurred. Both exist. How do we deal with this today? >}The questions we are skirting are (1) when do "human rights" begin, >I have yet to see the pro-choice camp come up with consistent criteria >for this. (i.e. criteria that don't also exclude the rights of humans >we do want to protect.) The "pro-choice camp" is a group of individuals as diverse as the "pro-life camp". Consistency is not a marked characteristic of either. You might anticipate that the "pro-choice camp" will not offer a consistent criteria that protects the rights you insist upon when they do not necessarily believe in those rights. Personally, I think human rights begin when a human is born. I think that children are granted the right to life by the sacrifices of their parents and their society. I don't think they have any will or rights before they are born, and they have reduced rights until the date of their emancipation (18 - 21). These are lines that are drawn out of a practical need, certainly, and don't have any more particular merit than saying "cows are holy" as far as I am concerned. But, for a civilization to function in a practical sense, lines are drawn. Are fetuses "little lumps of protoplasm" or are they "human" in all the meaning of that word? Are _WE_ even more than "little lumps of protoplasm"? I don't happen to believe that there is anything so terribly unique and wonderful about the race of man. The laws of civilization that I support (e.g., don't murder people, don't steal, etc.) I support out of pure self interest. I don't murder anybody else, 'cose I don't want to be murdered. I can honestly say I would not consider an abortion, but would I still honestly say that if I were 45, and therefore stood a much greater risk? I don't think there is anything sacred about life in the abstract, though there is a great deal of interest and pleasure in life specifically (and, personal observation, in children, too). This is why I consider abortion to be a personal issue, rather than a moral, religous or political one. It's been dragged into a public arena because of the concerns of people who disagree in principle (and, I expect, in fact). What happens next? Adrienne Regard
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (05/01/85)
Another response to Adrienne Regard: }> When CBS designated its panel as "uninvolved }>in the abortion controversy" one might expect them to be fetologists who are }>not, nor have they ever been, abortionists. Nor would one expect them to be }>recommended by an organization that has been politically or legally involved }>in abortion advocacy. Come now, be a little more reasonable. You knew that }>was the whole point, didn't you? } }Yes/no/maybe. Your posting noted that the panel "...in part..." is }involved the ACOG. That's not in toto. Also, fetologists unacquainted }with abortion may not have the same information that fetologists who have }been acquainted with abortion have. I'd be curious how much time the }"experts" actually spend in practice, and how much in research, how much }their viewpoints are affected by their work and how much by their morality. }A membership in a professional organization does not a radical make. The main problem is that CBS stressed that the defenders of the film were recommended (at CBS' request--they didn't mention that) by "the anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee". It presented the film's critics as objective, "uninvolved" in the controversy. The average person watching "CBS Morning News" doesn't know the extent to which the ACOG has been involved in abortion advocacy. If they had pointed out that neither the critics nor the supporters were unbiased in their views, it would have been a fair presentation. As it was, they deliberately led their viewers to believe that the film's critics were unbiased while stressing the bias of the film's supporters. The other events surrounding CBS' treatment of "The Silent Scream" described in my original article, conclusively point out the discrimination against the pro-life view by CBS. Adrienne's response to another article of mine: }So, our difference of opinion is the fundamental difference of "is a fetus }a life, or isn't it, and if it is, when does it gain that status?" Very }simple, really. We disagree, but I can accept the validity of your stance }(if I haven't distorted it yet again). Yes, we disagree. It would be hard to "agree to disagree" on the issue of human life and the right to life. So, the debate continues... }Now, a question arises of -- since we disagree, (as the two opposing sides }do), one of us will find that the laws of the country do not reflect his/er }belief. What do we do when our belief is the unsupported belief? } }Numerous people have indicated they have some interest in various pro-life }and pro-choice groups, which would indicate some political body that }operates within the laws of the country. That, too, is respectable. What }to do about the lawless (on either side of the issue)? When laws do not protect rights that we think should be protected we should use legal and peacable means to change the laws. The lawless on either sides of the issue are just that: lawless. There is no justification for that kind of behavior. }Re the social reality of women-as-sole-parent, Paul writes: }>I would venture to say that the availability of abortion might have }>contributed a good deal to this situation. Instead of balancing the }>inequity by holding men more responsible for the children they help }>conceive, pro-choice folks fought for the right to abortion to make women }>more independent. (The right to "control their bodies" and all that). }>This new independence places all the burden of child bearing on the women. }>It also lets men be irresponsible. If a woman gets pregnant, the man }>could feel more justified in leaving her on her own, since she can }>get an abortion. Abortion has helped insure that more of the burden }>of parenting is placed on the mother. } }Unfortunately, this is a chicken-of-the-egg argument. Which occurred as a }result of which is a little hard to determine -- both occurred. Both }exist. How do we deal with this today? No, it's not a circular argument. If the problem is that the "burden" of parenthood has been placed too much on the woman's shoulders, what really alleviates the problem? Abortion on demand *accommodates* it. }>}The questions we are skirting are (1) when do "human rights" begin, } }>I have yet to see the pro-choice camp come up with consistent criteria }>for this. (i.e. criteria that don't also exclude the rights of humans }>we do want to protect.) } }The "pro-choice camp" is a group of individuals as diverse as the "pro-life }camp". Consistency is not a marked characteristic of either. You might }anticipate that the "pro-choice camp" will not offer a consistent criteria }that protects the rights you insist upon when they do not necessarily }believe in those rights. My point was that the inconsistency comes in when the criterion used to determine basic rights of individuals (especially the right to life) also logically exclude the rights of other individuals whose rights we take for granted. I think you've left yourself wide open to charges of inconsistency in your following remarks: }Personally, I think human rights begin when a human is born. I think }that children are granted the right to life by the sacrifices of their }parents and their society. I don't think they have any will or rights }before they are born, and they have reduced rights until the date of their }emancipation (18 - 21). These are lines that are drawn out of a practical }need, certainly, and don't have any more particular merit than saying "cows }are holy" as far as I am concerned. But, for a civilization to function in }a practical sense, lines are drawn. One major point to make here is that the right to life is not in the same category with other rights we grant to individuals as they become responsible to carry them. The right to life it the most basic. Without it, it makes no sense to talk about *any* other rights. It is not just one more right along a continuum of rights. When you say human rights begin when one is born, I have to ask why that is necessarily so. If it is arbitrarily so, there is nothing to prevent the line from being drawn just as well somewhere else. This opens the door wide for the demise of civilization, rather than allowing it to function in a "practical sense", as you say. How are an individual's rights dependent on the sacrifices others make for her? }Are fetuses "little lumps of protoplasm" or are they "human" in all the }meaning of that word? Are _WE_ even more than "little lumps of protoplasm"? Yes! We are little lumps of protoplasm that can ask ourselves these kind of questions and consider the answers meaningful. If all you are is a lump of protoplasm (and really believe it), then none of what you say, do, feel or think has any real meaning or significance. Neither then, does your life. }I don't happen to believe that there is anything so terribly unique and }wonderful about the race of man. The laws of civilization that I support }(e.g., don't murder people, don't steal, etc.) I support out of pure self }interest. I don't murder anybody else, 'cose I don't want to be murdered. }I can honestly say I would not consider an abortion, but would I still }honestly say that if I were 45, and therefore stood a much greater risk? }I don't think there is anything sacred about life in the abstract, though }there is a great deal of interest and pleasure in life specifically (and, }personal observation, in children, too). An interesting thing for a lump of protoplasm to observe! Your reasons for supporting civilization might be good enought to keep *you* civilized, but they really don't hold water. Anyone else may simply observe that if they murder or steal they may get away with it. These people don't want to be murdered or stolen from either, but that's no reason for them not to murder or steal. If all you are is a lump of protoplasm then the murderer's act of killing you is really of no more significance than swatting a fly. Again, your observation of interest and pleasure in life and in children does not apply to everyone. They are insufficient reasons for considering life important. Can a parent who thinks children are not so enjoyable, just kill them? You draw the line at birth. What compels them to draw the line there also? If you are only against murder because you are against being murdered, then what grounds do you have to be against those who murder others than yourself? }This is why I consider abortion to be a personal issue, rather than a }moral, religous or political one. It's been dragged into a public arena }because of the concerns of people who disagree in principle (and, I }expect, in fact). What happens next? Abortion is a personal issue, but not murder or stealing? If we are all just protoplasm, what makes the personhood of the murder and larceny victims matter and those of the abortion victims not? If you are right, and everyone lived out the implications of your philosophy of life's meaning, then I would expect that *anything* could happen next, and that it would mean *nothing* (whatever it was). -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd