unixcorn@dcc1.UUCP (math.c) (04/15/85)
*** Replace this line with your Jack Russell Terrier
I am new to the net (be gentle.. this is my first posting)
I have been reading this group for awhile now and thought I'd throw
out and _not too hypothetical_ scenario for some of you to chew on.
I've known for a long time that I did not like children ( I don't hate
them, I just am not fond of them. (Feel much the same about cats, you want
one go ahead, just keep it out of my yard)) I was also a charming (but
incredibly sickly ... bad allergies, mysterious maladies, etc.) kid.
I therefore decided I would NOT have children and stayed on the Pill for
seven years until I got my tubes tied at age 27. I made this decision,
no one else, not my parents, not my significant others , ME because I was
the one who would bear the burden of my actions.
I did consult with my (then to be) husband to be because I wanted him to know
he was getting me NOT any 'fruit of my womb'. If he wanted any progeny
he was going to have to handle it himself (so to speak). He didn't care,
so no problem. So far everything is fine.
Enough background, What would all you people propose that I do if I
became pregnent? ( I am NOT so feel free so propound any solutions)
I would not want the kid (my genes are too poor to wish them passed on)
I know what it was like to feel isolated during childhood (missing tons
of school, always out of step with the other kids , usually feeling
relatively rotten) and add the fact that in grad school I found that
my retinas are detachable (this is not good and is hereditary in my family.
I was the youngest to get it so far at age 25)
Do you _right to life_ believers REALLY think I ought to spend nine
months (probably miserable if my history is a factor) to produce a
pretty poor speciman of a child (it would have to have SOME of my genes
and my husband's aren't a lot better ) WHEN I HAVE DONE EVERYTHING
REASONABLE TO KEEP FROM GETTING PREGNANT? (Except abstinance Sorry that's
out)
Having seen the results of other people's postings, I'm ready to
duck when/if I'm flamed so have at it.
Madelyn T. Gould
--
unixcorn (alias m. gould)
"there's a unicorn in the garden and he's eating a lily"
gatech!dcc1!unixcornpmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (04/17/85)
A response to Madelyn T. Gould: > I've known for a long time that I did not like children ( I don't hate >them, I just am not fond of them. (Feel much the same about cats, you want >one go ahead, just keep it out of my yard)) I was also a charming (but >incredibly sickly ... bad allergies, mysterious maladies, etc.) kid. >I therefore decided I would NOT have children and stayed on the Pill for >seven years until I got my tubes tied at age 27. I made this decision, >no one else, not my parents, not my significant others , ME because I was >the one who would bear the burden of my actions. > > I did consult with my (then to be) husband to be because I wanted him to know >he was getting me NOT any 'fruit of my womb'. If he wanted any progeny >he was going to have to handle it himself (so to speak). He didn't care, >so no problem. So far everything is fine. > > Enough background, What would all you people propose that I do if I >became pregnent? ( I am NOT so feel free so propound any solutions) > > I would not want the kid (my genes are too poor to wish them passed on) >I know what it was like to feel isolated during childhood (missing tons >of school, always out of step with the other kids , usually feeling >relatively rotten) and add the fact that in grad school I found that >my retinas are detachable (this is not good and is hereditary in my family. >I was the youngest to get it so far at age 25) > > Do you _right to life_ believers REALLY think I ought to spend nine >months (probably miserable if my history is a factor) to produce a >pretty poor speciman of a child (it would have to have SOME of my genes >and my husband's aren't a lot better ) WHEN I HAVE DONE EVERYTHING >REASONABLE TO KEEP FROM GETTING PREGNANT? (Except abstinance Sorry that's >out) You're making a lot of assumptions here. Even if they were valid assumptions I don't think they would justify abortion. First off, you don't know that your child will have the problems you do. You act as if it is inevitable that she will. Either that or you think the chance that she will justifies aborting her. Why take the chance at aborting a child who is healthy? Second, you assume that if the child has the same probems you did, that it is wrong for her to live. On what basis do you justify that conclusion? How can you tell if another's life is worth living? Whose point of view is worth considering here, the one actually living the life, or someone else's? You might find people who you would think are worse off than you but enjoy their lives more. Isn't it fair to let a person live and decide for herself if her life is worth living? Third, you don't really know whether an abortion will put less strain on your health (mental or physical) than carrying pregnancy to term. (You stress possible problems with pregnancy, while ignoring those of abortion.) Abstinence is the only 100% effective way to not get pregnant. Since you exclude that method you and your husband are faced with the small chance that you may get pregnant. The choice is yours, isn't it? You know what the chances are. You are drawing your own line. The assumption you are making here is that it is fair for your progeny to bear the brunt of your choice and not you and your husband. Didn't you say that you were the one who would bear the burden of your own decisions? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
goldman@umn-cs.UUCP (Matthew D. Goldman ) (04/24/85)
In article <113@dcc1.UUCP> unixcorn@dcc1.UUCP (math.c) writes: > > Enough background, What would all you people propose that I do if I >became pregnent? ( I am NOT so feel free so propound any solutions) > > I would not want the kid (my genes are too poor to wish them passed on) >I know what it was like to feel isolated during childhood (missing tons >of school, always out of step with the other kids , usually feeling >relatively rotten) and add the fact that in grad school I found that >my retinas are detachable (this is not good and is hereditary in my family. >I was the youngest to get it so far at age 25) > only one solution... abortion. sometimes the best choice. Matt Goldman (but they call me Otto) inhp4!stolaf!umn-cs!goldman Home is where you take off your hat... Banzai!
johnston@spp1.UUCP (Micheal L. Johnston) (04/29/85)
> Do you _right to life_ believers REALLY think I ought to spend nine > months (probably miserable if my history is a factor) to produce a > pretty poor speciman of a child (it would have to have SOME of my genes > and my husband's aren't a lot better ) . > > Madelyn T. Gould > You mentioned you didn't like kids so you're probably not a good one to raise them. Then don't. With certain exceptions, adopting out a baby is very easy (logistically, I know it's traumatic). In terms of avoiding poor specimens, you can't tell that would be the case; but just that idea reminds me of a lot of science fiction I've read. Having the right to life be contingent on criteria such as gene makeup would be a rascist dream who wouldn't consider it possible for certain races to produce an acceptable specimen. Mike Johnston