mn@dscvax2.UUCP (Matt Noah) (03/13/85)
> One thing you will have to contend with on this newsgroup are assumptions > made by pro-life: > 1. The woman must be "responsible" for her naughty action > of having sex. The "punishment", have the baby. Note, > that even though the "famous" rape/incest victim is > allowed to have the abortion because it isn't her fault > she is pregnant. > 2. The want for the fetus to be carried to term overides any > wants of the mother. Interesting that you view pro-lifers this way. I am surprised that one who follows the argument could have such an attitude. Do you really think that people who are pro-life view sex as "naughty"? It would appear that you want to make pro-lifers appear child-like in their moral beliefs. I think what you might want to say is that their is a portion of the pro-life community who view sex as something special and as an act which bears certain responsibilities. If that's what you mean, I think I could agree with you. Also, I don't think you meant to say that only the woman is responsible so nearly all of us presumably uneducated pro-lifers now realize that males have something to do with bringing about pregnancy. Your second assumption is cleverly worded, also. Rhetorically, who speaks for the views of the pregnant woman? The woman, of course. Well now, again rhetorically, who speaks for the unborn child? I guess you understand my point. If not, let me emphasize it: someone has to speak for the rights of unborn children! Unlike the pro-abortionist, however, the pro-life community has extended itself to care for the needs of the mother; providing counseling, housing, food and love. We don't make any $$ doing it, either. > In case you haven't realized by now, I am pro abortion on demand (so are 76% > of Boston's catholics by the way). However, I also believe that there are > many women who wouldn't have abortions if there was adequate birth control > information available, AND if pro-lifers and pro-choicers could work together > WITHOUT trying to convince the pregnant woman whether or not to have an > abortion, and just lay out ALL the options. I know that many clinics do not > have access to information concerning group homes and financial aid, and > adoption assistance available to pregnant women. And I know that many pro- > life groups do not have the medical information necessary to make an informed > decision as to whether or not to have an abortion. 76% of Boston's Catholics are not pro-abortion. Please get your facts straight before posting such a fallacy. Adequate birth control information is availabel to any person who is responsible enough to seek it. Similarly, adequate information is available to any responsible individual about abortion and its alternatives. You are naive to think that pro-lifers will work together with pro-choicers to provide every alternative to abortion. Each has their selfish interest to protect ($ for pro-choicers, LIFE for pro-lifers) and will not work with the other. As for the rest of the above paragraph; where do you come by your "knowledge"? We in Santa Barbara have all the necessary medical information, counselors and help one could ask for. This is so typical of pro-life groups that what you say is just an out-n-out lie! > Abortions have been done for thousands of years. There will always be those > women who will have them. Wouldn't it be better to lose only one life > than two? And better still to provide the education to prevent the > pregnancy in the first place? > > Mikki Barry Mikki, I think you just became a pro-lifer. If you read your last paragraph you will notice that you admit that a life is lost during an abortion. You may think that you just slipped but I think you've admitted that life begins before birth! Congratulations! Matt Noah
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (03/15/85)
[.......] > ............... Unlike the pro-abortionist, however, the pro-life >community has extended itself to care for the needs of the mother; providing >counseling, housing, food and love. First, the term 'pro-abortionist' is incorrect. Pro-choice people particularly use the term pro-choice because that's what they mean. Abortion is not particularly a PREFERRED option, but it is viewed as an EXISTING OPTION. The term 'pro-abortion' or like is generally used by pro-lifers who wish to paint propagandist pictures of anyone who disagrees with them (also used are 'pro-death', anti-life, etc. as if anyone who disagrees with me is diametrically opposed). Second, I would not assume that the pro-choice community has not extended itself to care as you indicate, and further would ask: 1. What has the pro-life community done to counsel women BEFORE pregnancy in attempts to minimize situations where abortion could be considered as an option? 2. What is the attitude of pro-lifers about pre-teen and teenage birth control and sex education in a similar attempt to minimize such situations where abortion is considered? > ..... You are naive to think that pro-lifers will >work together with pro-choicers to provide every alternative to abortion. >Each has their selfish interest to protect ($ for pro-choicers, LIFE for >pro-lifers) and will not work with the other. I certainly wouldn't expect any collaborations with idiots like this involved. This one hardly warrants any response. Fortunately, I don't expect most pro-lifers feel this way. If they do, then any lack of inclination to work together is in the pro-life camp, not the pro-choice. ( I'm pro-choice, when do I get my money? :-) ) I think there is room for collaboration. However, as long as pro-lifers feel the only way to minimize abortions is to try to make them illegal, then there's not much starting ground. If on the other hand if we all agree that abortions are clearly not DESIREABLE, then maybe we can work together to counsel women in such a way as to minimize the occurence of such problem preganacys that would lead to abortions. Certainly most pro-lifers are not so naive as to think that laws will ELIMINATE abortions? Does it not stand to reason that the effect laws will have on reducing abortions may also be achieved in OTHER ways that do not create unsafe black-market industries? This is not to say there are no problems however. Controversies about sex education and birth control provided to teenagers(without knowledge of parents etc.) are inclined to pop up. How do pro-lifers feel about these? Is this part of the underlying reasons the pro-lifers prefer illegal abortions to other methods of reducing abortions? Maybe we should discuss this for a while? Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd "You'll PAY to know what you REALLY think!"
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (03/15/85)
It seems that Matt Noah thinks that us pro-choicers are motivated by money: > We don't make any $$ doing it, either. > > You are naive to think that pro-lifers will > work together with pro-choicers to provide every alternative to abortion. > Each has their selfish interest to protect ($ for pro-choicers, LIFE for > pro-lifers) and will not work with the other. I guess now that the cat is out of the bag, all of us pro-choicers are just going to have to close up our clinics. They've figured out that we're only pro-choice because of the vast amounts of money we're all getting for aborting everything in sight. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "I am what I am, and that's all that I am."-Popeye the sailor man.
barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (03/16/85)
Please, don't call me names.
Point #1
A WBZ poll conducted February of 1985 composed EXCLUSIVELY of practcing
catholics found that 74% AGREED WITH ABORTION ON DEMAND! If you like, I
will get a hardcopy and mail it to you. I DO check my facts.
Because I may believe that a fetus is a potential life (or even a real, live
life) does not make me anti-abortion. I simply believe that the woman's
rights override any of the potential being to use her as a life support
system.
Yes, men have responsibility (or should) for an unwanted pregnancy. But
men don't get morning sickness, men don't have to see the doctor at least
once a month, take vitamins, watch everything he eats and drinks, wake up at
4am with stomach pains from a 6+ month old fetus kicking, etc. He doesn;t
even have to hang around to pay for the kid if it is born. It would be nice
to live in a society where everyone really did share equal responsibility.
Perhaps you would stick around, but I have seen too many men bolt as soon as
they found that the woman who thought he loved her was pregnant.
Yes, sex is a very special thing. Yes, people should take responsibility
for sex, BUT I have known responsible people using contraception who have
gotten pregnant anyway. AND the men involved were nowhere to be found once
they found what they were also responsible for. I also know of MANY young
women who are too ignorant of birth control methods to even know they have
to ASK to get information ("Nothing will happen if its the first time", etc).
And what happens if I don't think sex is so special, and am on contraception,
and get pregnant anyway by some guy that takes off when he finds out? Am I
then obligated to take on his responsibility as well, and have the baby?
However, if I think sex is special, but get raped, I can have an abortion
because it wasn't my fault?
Nobody's saying this is a simple issue. I believe that there are too m
many abortions, and many are done as birth control methods. However, that
is no reason to tell me I can't have one. Instead, pro-lifers should
dedicate themselves to preventing problem pregnancies. (Yes, there are
such things).
Mikki Barry
Pro Choicegadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (03/18/85)
--
BRAVO, MIKKI! Great refutation of those who allege to be "pro-life"
but could care less about the life of the pregnant woman. Yes,
indeed, Mikki *IS* pro-life, as all pro-choice advocates truly are.
Pro-the one life about which there can be no argument--the woman's!
Anti-abortionists can rage ad infinitum about their so-called
"silent scream", but, of course, they are just playing with words.
Amoebas also withdraw from a saline solution very quickly--perhaps they
are "screaming", too. Remember this, anti-abortionists, the next time
you get sick in Mexico.
Pro-choice, of course, and I vote.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 17 Mar 85 [27 Ventose An CXCIII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7188 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***mn@dscvax2.UUCP (Matt Noah) (03/19/85)
>> ............... Unlike the pro-abortionist, however, the pro-life >>community has extended itself to care for the needs of the mother; providing >>counseling, housing, food and love. > >First, the term 'pro-abortionist' is incorrect. Pro-choice people particularly >use the term pro-choice because that's what they mean. Abortion is not >particularly a PREFERRED option, but it is viewed as an EXISTING OPTION. >The term 'pro-abortion' or like is generally used by pro-lifers who wish >to paint propagandist pictures of anyone who disagrees with them (also >used are 'pro-death', anti-life, etc. as if anyone who disagrees with >me is diametrically opposed). To be pro-choice in today's world is to be pro-abortion. Analogy? If the issue were black slavery, would you consider the pro-choice (let the slave-owner decide) viewpoint as anything but pro-slavery. To be silent about such a critical issue is to accept it - even if one does not practice it. One cannot run on the grass while "sitting on the fence". >Second, I would not assume that the pro-choice community has not extended >itself to care as you indicate, and further would ask: > > 1. What has the pro-life community done to counsel women BEFORE > pregnancy in attempts to minimize situations where abortion > could be considered as an option? > > 2. What is the attitude of pro-lifers about pre-teen and teenage > birth control and sex education in a similar attempt to minimize > such situations where abortion is considered? > Give me an example of the way the pro-choice community has done anything - under the banner of pro-choice - to help unwed mothers. In my own city of Santa Barbara, the SB Pregnancy Counseling Center helps women in distress. On February 14, 1985 "Tender Life" in Ventura, CA incorporated to establish free pregnancy testing, a hotline, counseling, per-natal and childcare classes, job training ( for poor unwed mothers, not all are) and single parent counseling. In addition, real estate is being set aside to establish a home to house young women turned out of their homes because of their pregnancies. Why don't you send a check to Tender Life, PO BOX 7610, Oxnard, CA 93-31 or call Leah Coulter at (805)-983-4231? If you really mean well, this is an excellent chance to help someone. >> ..... You are naive to think that pro-lifers will >>work together with pro-choicers to provide every alternative to abortion. >>Each has their selfish interest to protect ($ for pro-choicers, LIFE for >>pro-lifers) and will not work with the other. > >I certainly wouldn't expect any collaborations with idiots like this involved. >This one hardly warrants any response. Fortunately, I don't expect most >pro-lifers feel this way. If they do, then any lack of inclination to >work together is in the pro-life camp, not the pro-choice. ( I'm pro-choice, >when do I get my money? :-) ) I'm glad you think I'm an idiot because name-calling is a sign that you're running out of rational responses. Since one of the arguments used by the pro-choicers is that many births would lead to a greater welfare roll, then you stand on the side of your pocketbook. Not every prchoicer is making big money from abortions - only people who work the clinics, etc. Some of you foolishly defend abortionists while your rights are escaping you, e.g. currently a husband whose wife has an abortion has no say in the decision. I, for one, want my rights returned. I also want to see the next generation of adults brought up in a world where life is sacred; the aged, the pre-born, the mentally retarded, the handicapped, etc. Man should not have the power over life that he now commands. Making abortion illegal is a step back to sanity. Since abortion was made legal, child abuse in this country has more than doubled - is this respect for life? >I think there is room for collaboration. However, as long as pro-lifers >feel the only way to minimize abortions is to try to make them illegal, >then there's not much starting ground. If on the other hand if we all agree >that abortions are clearly not DESIREABLE, then maybe we can work together >to counsel women in such a way as to minimize the occurence of such >problem preganacys that would lead to abortions. Certainly most pro-lifers >are not so naive as to think that laws will ELIMINATE abortions? Does it >not stand to reason that the effect laws will have on reducing abortions >may also be achieved in OTHER ways that do not create unsafe black-market >industries? Cocaine is illegal and people die terrible deaths in the course of selling and distributing it. Would you then propose to make cocaine legal? Do you think it would be a wise decision? Give me the scenario (legal, moral, etc.) in which drugs such as cocaine would be acceptable to you? >This is not to say there are no problems however. Controversies about >sex education and birth control provided to teenagers(without knowledge >of parents etc.) are inclined to pop up. How do pro-lifers feel about >these? Is this part of the underlying reasons the pro-lifers prefer >illegal abortions to other methods of reducing abortions? Maybe we should >discuss this for a while? > >Keith Doyle ># {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd >"You'll PAY to know what you REALLY think!" Tell me what is wrong with adoption. Ask a poor child if he would rather be dead than poor. Why is the incidence of child abuse higher in families where the child was born in a WANTED pregnancy? Matt Noah
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (03/20/85)
[............] >>First, the term 'pro-abortionist' is incorrect. Pro-choice people particularly >>use the term pro-choice because that's what they mean. Abortion is not >>particularly a PREFERRED option, but it is viewed as an EXISTING OPTION. >To be pro-choice in today's world is to be pro-abortion. Analogy? If the >issue were black slavery, would you consider the pro-choice (let the >slave-owner decide) viewpoint as anything but pro-slavery. To be silent >about such a critical issue is to accept it - even if one does not practice >it. One cannot run on the grass while "sitting on the fence". I stand by my original statement. I would prefer 'NOT anti-abortion' if you like, as it dosen't mean the same thing. I still feel pro-abortion implies that abortion is preferred over other options. >>Second, I would not assume that the pro-choice community has not extended >>itself to care as you indicate, and further would ask: >> >> 1. What has the pro-life community done to counsel women BEFORE >> pregnancy in attempts to minimize situations where abortion >> could be considered as an option? >> >> 2. What is the attitude of pro-lifers about pre-teen and teenage >> birth control and sex education in a similar attempt to minimize >> such situations where abortion is considered? >> >Give me an example of the way the pro-choice community has done anything - >under the banner of pro-choice - to help unwed mothers. In my own city >of Santa Barbara, the SB Pregnancy Counseling Center helps women in >distress. On February 14, 1985 "Tender Life" in Ventura, CA incorporated >to establish free pregnancy testing, a hotline, counseling, per-natal and >childcare classes, job training ( for poor unwed mothers, not all are) >and single parent counseling. In addition, real estate is being set aside >to establish a home to house young women turned out of their homes because >of their pregnancies. Why don't you send a check to Tender Life, PO BOX >7610, Oxnard, CA 93-31 or call Leah Coulter at (805)-983-4231? If you >really mean well, this is an excellent chance to help someone. That's it, let's change the subject. All the responses you gave me indicate things done for 'pregnant' women. What about efforts to educate women before they're pregnant and in trouble? Your response would indicate that you know of nothing. A woman considering an abortion gets plenty of counseling before the abortion is performed. And, there should be groups working on education on sex and contracetption (not necessarily pro-choice driven). Show me one of these, and I'll contribute. >>> ..... You are naive to think that pro-lifers will >>>work together with pro-choicers to provide every alternative to abortion. >>>Each has their selfish interest to protect ($ for pro-choicers, LIFE for >>>pro-lifers) and will not work with the other. >> >>I certainly wouldn't expect any collaborations with idiots like this involved. >>This one hardly warrants any response. Fortunately, I don't expect most >>pro-lifers feel this way. If they do, then any lack of inclination to >>work together is in the pro-life camp, not the pro-choice. ( I'm pro-choice, >>when do I get my money? :-) ) >I'm glad you think I'm an idiot because name-calling is a sign that you're >running out of rational responses. As if such an attitude of unwillingness to work together to resolve differences deserves rational responses. >Since one of the arguments used by the pro-choicers is that many births >would lead to a greater welfare roll, then you stand on the side of your >pocketbook. Not every prchoicer is making big money >from abortions - only people who work the clinics, etc. Some of you >foolishly defend abortionists while your rights are escaping you, e.g. >currently a husband whose wife has an abortion has no say in the decision. >I, for one, want my rights returned. I also want to see the next generation >of adults brought up in a world where life is sacred; the aged, the pre-born, >the mentally retarded, the handicapped, etc. Man should not have the power >over life that he now commands. Making abortion illegal is a step back to >sanity. Since abortion was made legal, child abuse in this country has more >than doubled - is this respect for life? I don't expect the people who work the clinics are motivated by big bucks but rather are motivated by interest in helping unwed mothers etc.. However, someone closer to the clinics themselves would have to answer the question 'why do you do it' better than I. As far as husbands rights, that may be a different issue, many women desiring abortions want one because their husband exercized his right to 'split' and left them high and dry. >Cocaine is illegal and people die terrible deaths in the course of selling >and distributing it. Would you then propose to make cocaine legal? Do you >think it would be a wise decision? Give me the scenario (legal, moral, etc.) >in which drugs such as cocaine would be acceptable to you? The very fact that cocaine is a big business is testament to the fact that illegality has little effect on whether people use it or not. (Illegal != socially unacceptable). Personally, I would advocate the legalization of cocaine, not because I think that cocaine is a good thing, but because I object to MEGABUCK$ (there's that financial motivation again) being siphoned out of the U.S. with no control, taxation, etc. I would however, wish to stipulate that legalization of cocaine is accompanied by a campaign designed to present it as socially UNACCEPTABLE, as I feel this is the only way to reduce its usage. Do you really think that because it suddenly becomes legal that everyone in the country would go out and use it? Are ALL the unwanted children aborted since abortion was legalized 12 years ago? Is it only because of the pro-life campaigns? (NO!) The days are long gone (if they were ever here) where social acceptance = legality. I feel laws designed to make things like cocaine illegal, are supporting these illegal activites by providing a black-marketplace that is very condusive to the making of big money. If it was a small business that the government could effectively control, then that's one thing. Social behavior that is deemed acceptable by a large segment of the population however, clearly are not effectively handled by laws and government agencies (and beefing up the agencies in order to fight such WARs is not the answer). Morality has nothing to do with it, as I am not arrogant enough to feel I must impose my personal moral convictions on other people as long as they don't interfere with mine. And lets please not go through all of the sensationalist comparisons, as this particular philosophy only extends to illegal acts that large portions of the populace pratice, and are ones that only affect an individuals immediate circle or family. >Tell me what is wrong with adoption. Not a thing. It is ONE ANSWER. >Why is the incidence of child abuse higher in families where the child > was born in a WANTED pregnancy? This is interesting, tell me more. >Matt Noah Keith Doyle
mn@dscvax2.UUCP (Matt Noah) (03/21/85)
>It is the kind of hysteria such as yours that makes it impossible for any >compromise in the abortion issue. hysteria: 1. an uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear, often characterized by irrationality, laughter, weeping, etc. Since I am in control of my emotions, I have nothing to fear and I posess none of the above mentioned characteristics I would say I am not hysterical. What's your idea of a compromise? >I HAVE had friend go to abortion clinics, and I HAVE gone with them. I will >tell you that the clinics I have been to are VERY concerned with the woman >involved. They ask her over and over again if she is sure she wants the >abortion, and if she would like to be referred to a mental health pro >if she wants to clarify her own choice to herself. Most clinics also >offer many gynecological services besides abortion, so believe me, they >don't live on abortion money. They don't need to talk anyone into abortions >because the vast majority of women who go there are prefectly aware of their >choice. It sickens me that some think that women are people who have to >be protected because they can't make their own choices and are so easily >persuaded to do something they consider horrible by unscupulous people who just >want money. Women are perfectly intellegent enough to make their own >decisions. They dont need help from you. I am sure it is possible to go to an abortion office and get compassion from the staff. Your experience is questionably unique. Some OBs practices do not depend strictly on abortions for their livelihoods. Abortion mills sprang up to profit directly from the Supreme Court decision. Dr. Nathanson - a reformed abortionist - estimates his NY office performed 750,000 abortions. Where do you think the abortion mills make their money - gynecological services??? Wake up. Sorry, most women who are aware of their choice are not educated about the alternatives. That's the real situation. Adolescents seeking a quick solution to an unwanted pregnancy don't do alot of research. Who told you the vast majority of women are perfectly aware of their choice? Did you mean to imply that they have weighed the alterntives and made a rational decision? I submit otherwise. Babies need protection. A woman who is distraught over an unwanted pregnancy needs love and counseling - not someone pushing her to the quick "solution" known as abortion. >When a woman who has decided that an abortion is the best >thing for her (and sometimes for the fetus as well), does she need to have >farcical pictures shoved in her face and be called a murderer? She is already >traumatized enough. What if the same woman was approached by someone offering >a realistic alternative. What if she was told of a free program whereby she >would be taken care of, and receive adoption help, or help taking care of the >baby? Wouldn't that be more productive than the lies being pushed in her >face now? If you truly believe that abortion is the "best thing" for a fetus I would have to imply that you believe in infanticide. You obviously believe that poor people should not have children. If not, what in the hell good does an abortion do for a fetus? I don't want my tax dollars spent on abortion. I would rather see them go to HELP clinics and shelters. Challenge: tell us what you've done to aid in the cause you support! What have you done to help women by way of donations or services rendered to adoption, counseling or shelter? If you have done something I applaud you. If not, don't preach. Harry Truman once said of some of his adversaries ... 'I don't tell 'em to go to hell ... I just tell the truth on them and that makes 'em feel like they're in hell ...' Abortion is one of the ugliest truths I know of to be pushed in someone's face - most of the pro-lifers don't push anything in anyone's face, though. >PLEASE, for the sake of all women, stop the hysterical reaction to abortion >and work on something to benefit everyone - prevention of unwanted pregnancy? >Stop spending money on picketing, farcical films, and insulting women's >intellegence and put it into group homes, financial aid for pregnant women >and birth control information. Isn't that better than raising everyone's >blood pressure? > >Mikki Barry PLEASE, for the sake of all women, stop the hysterical reaction to pro-life and work on something to benefit everyone - prevention of unwanted pregnancy? Stop making money on abortions and insulting women's intelligence. Put your efforts into group homes, financial aid for pregnant women and birth control information. Isn't that better than raising everyone's blood pressure? Matt Noah
mn@dscvax2.UUCP (Matt Noah) (03/21/85)
>Please, don't call me names. Do you not admit to saying that an abortion killed a life? I believe the name fits just as any other descriptive name such as football player, musician, etc. >A WBZ poll conducted February of 1985 composed EXCLUSIVELY of practcing >catholics found that 74% AGREED WITH ABORTION ON DEMAND! If you like, I >will get a hardcopy and mail it to you. I DO check my facts. We all know those type of public opinion polls are highly susceptible to bias. For example, the wording of the question asked. For example, the tone of voice of the pollster. For example, the personal view of the pollster. What was the question asked? What is the sampling number? Who or what is WBZ? What is their definition of a practicing Catholic? Most people are silent about the abortion issue anyway and could be swayed either way easily by a poorly worded or carefully worded question. >Because I may believe that a fetus is a potential life (or even a real, live >life) does not make me anti-abortion. I simply believe that the woman's >rights override any of the potential being to use her as a life support >system. If a fetus is a life as you "may believe" (what do you believe?) then he/she is accorded the full protection of the Constitution to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Isn't a newborn baby rather dependent on a mother? How many 3-month-old babies are self-sustaining? Also, I guess you believe that an infant has no rights to be a drag on his parents until he/she can land a job. >Nobody's saying this is a simple issue. I believe that there are too m >many abortions, and many are done as birth control methods. However, that >is no reason to tell me I can't have one. Instead, pro-lifers should >dedicate themselves to preventing problem pregnancies. (Yes, there are >such things). > >Mikki Barry >Pro Choice The overriding reason I want to 'tell someone they can't have one' is to protect the life of the child. I have spiritual reaons which not many people understand, too, but even those are not as overriding as the need to protect human life. Speaking for myself, I have dedicated myself to preventing problem pregnancies. I am also dedicated to preventing abortions - a problem; not a solution. Matt Noah
barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (03/25/85)
Here we go again........ Matt Noah seems to think that pro-choicers are all pro-abortion....ok he is entitled to his opinion. But the statement that pro-choicers believe the way they do because of money is ludicrous at best. One could also say pro-lifers are that way because of money...they don't want to pay for poor woman's abortions. Mr. Noah also seems to draw a corelation between frequency of child abuse and abortion's legality. That is like drawing a correlation between the number of people who died in vietnam, and what kind of drinking water they had as kids. Gee, maybe it did have something to do with it :) As for legalizing cocaine, Hugh Downs and Barbara Walters advocated it in a national forum 20/20. After getting over the shock, I stopped to think about it. Legalizaing cocaine and other illegal drugs would bring in the same controls as it did with abortion. People would stop dying because of bad drugs, as they stopped dying because of bad abortions. The government (not the mafia) would be in control, and it could be taxed to bring in more revenue. Or is this the same argument as with abortion's legality.....you became addicted to drugs, you should take the risk of dying because of it (you got pregnant, that's your problem) which it seems Noah is saying. p.s. is your Tender Life example pro-choice, or does it tell a woman who comes to them for help that she would be a murderer if she had an abortion?
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/25/85)
> Since abortion was made legal, child abuse in this country has more > than doubled - is this respect for life? > > Why is the incidence of child abuse higher in families where the child > was born in a WANTED pregnancy? > > Matt Noah And what kind of substantiation do you have for these outrageous claims? In case you might not be aware of it, child abuse is a topic that has only been researched very recently because it has always been taboo. It is ridiculous to speak in terms of recent increases since we have no idea of previous figures. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!utcs!mnetor!sophie
barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (03/25/85)
Matt, Matt, Matt. Don;t you understand you won't change my opinion? But
since you brought up a few points directed to me in particular, I will
address them:
1. I contribute to Planned Parenthood, a group that in my city does NOT
perform abortions, but DOES councel women as to proper birth control
methods and pregnancy help. Yes, they do refer women to clinics
if they decide (after counceling) to have an abortion.
2. Yes, there are times when it would be best FOR THE FETUS to be aborted.
Try severe birth defects for one.
3. How many clinics would you like me to name for you before you admit that
not all clinics that do abortions make all their money from them?
4. You attitude that a pregnant woman is stupid upsets me. It may come
as a severe shock to you, but a pregnant woman is perfectly capable of
making rational decisions. Go ask a few to figure out math problems
if you don't believe me. Women have brains with which to make decisions
concerning pregnancy. Who are you to say they do not?
5. Pickets at the NH health center I went to for ob/gyn shoved pictures of
6 month old miscarried fetuses in my face when I went inside for a pap
smear. It upset me because I realized that these people actually believed
that the picture they held was a first trimester abortion, and they may
also cause someone else to believe it. It also made me wonder how many
people were going into the clinic for routine checks as opposed to the
target group of women going in for abortions.
6. Can a pro-lifer tell a pro-choicer not to preach? Which one of our
opinions is drawn from religion? Certainly not mine.
We could go on forever, arguing back and forth and not changing a damn
thing. If you don't like abortion, that's of course your right. Send
in your money to pro-life groups, picket clinics, call your congresspeople.
It won't change anything. Abortions will happen anyway as they have for
thousands of years. I am simply advocating stopping the problem of unwanted
pregnancies before abortion is even thought about. If you disagree, and
believe unwanted pregnancies should not be stopped, that's a different
discussion.
Mikki Barrylydgate@reed.UUCP (Chris Lydgate) (03/27/85)
Skimming through mountains of verbiage, I stumbled upon this little gem: >>Since abortion was made legal, child abuse in this country has more >>than doubled - is this respect for life? I hope that you're not suggesting that legalizing abortion in any way *caused* the rising rate of child abuse; that's analogous to claiming that the electiton of Reagan in 1980 caused a huge increase in the rate of purchase of home computers- I mean, it may just possibly be true, but you can't realistically assert such a causal link without reams and reams of specific data, and a valid hypothesis: none of which I see in your article. -- chris lydgate c/o the information vortex !tektronix!reed!lydgate
tjm@homxb.UUCP (T.MEAGHER) (03/29/85)
> 2. Yes, there are times when it would be best FOR THE FETUS to be aborted. > Try severe birth defects for one. > Mikki Barry Why is it best FOR THE FETUS? Who are we to decide that this fetus/person is better off dead than alive? I assume this fetus/person is better off because we are sparing him/her a potentially painful and difficult life. If you assume this, then do you also advocate killing those who make it out of the womb and then are discovered to have severe birth defects? Tim Meagher