barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (03/18/85)
I am well aware of your views concerning when the fetus becomes a baby. You believe it is at the moment of conception. I believe it is a person when it can survive separately and apart from the woman providing life support. Then and ONLY then is there something to *kill* You know, Ken, it is wonderful that you work for Birthright. However, the very name of the place scares away many women. It implies that the fetus has a right to the use of the mother's body. It does not. The Supreme Court agrees, and it is now the law. If your group changes the law, and I want an abortion, I will go where it is legal and have one, or if I feel strongly enough, I will have an illegal one. Why not drop the dogma and start facing the reality that abortion WILL happen no matter how much you don't like it. >WHY are the doctors working on the premie??? >WHY are the doctors leaving the other (in the case of 'live birth') to die??? I must wonder about a doctor who would leave something that is living and breathing on its own to die. I have never heard of this happening, and having relatives that worked in hospitals (in delivery rooms), at least at these hospitals, doctors DO NOT leave anything to die. Second or third trimester abortions are rare. It is SO rare that an abortion could have survived on its own outside of the mother that it shouldn't even used as issue to ban all abortions. The cases of a child being born severely deformed and the parents and doctors deciding to withhold treatment is completely different than a fetus living after an abortion. >Is the difference one is wanted and the other an embarrassment? >One is at the 'right time in my life' and the other not??? >Please tell me the difference, because I really want to believe that we have >NOT been killing babies to make our lives more convenient!!!!!! Ken, whether or abortions have been for the sake of convenience is not an issue, nor should it be. If I choose not to have a child, and become pregnant, I will abort. If somebody else convinces me to have the child I will. I don't care when *you* think life begins. I also don't care if you think I am killing something. If I choose to have an abortion, I will have one. If *you* want to carry the fetus to term, and take responsibility, please do. But I don't want the sickness, sacrifice, etc. of carrying a pregnancy to term if I don't choose to. I realize that you will not be convinced of my position, and I will not be convinced of yours. So why not lay aside this argument of when life begins, and what is murder, and work on prevention of problem pregnancy? Or, work on making sure the pregnant woman is presented with ALL alternatives, INCLUDING abortion by an unbiased third party? (By definition, pro-lifers are not unbiased) Believe it or not, I don't like the idea of abortion (that is why my Significant Other and I use contraception). But if an accidental pregnancy occured (yes, there is such a thing as an accidental pregnancy), the decision to carry to term or not is mine. And it will always remain mine, whether or not the laws change. >Regards, >Ken Arndt Mikki Barry
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (03/19/85)
> Why not drop the dogma and start facing the reality that abortion > WILL happen no matter how much you don't like it. This argument is basically a cop-out. The idea that there shouldn't be laws against an activity because some people will engage in it anyway only has any relevance when talking about "victimless" activities. When deciding whether or not to make laws about situations involving victims, this argument quickly becomes absurd: Why not drop the dogma and start facing the reality that MURDER (of born humans) WILL happen no matter how much you don't like it. Why not drop the dogma and start facing the reality that RAPE WILL happen no matter how much you don't like it. Why not drop the dogma and start facing the reality that MUGGINGS WILL happen no matter how much you don't like it. We have laws against murder, rape, and mugging, even though there are many people who don't obey these laws. If I'm remembering Criminal Justice class correctly, only a very small percentage of the crimes that are committed lead to a conviction. If someone really wants to go out and commit a crime, there is a good chance that they will never be caught. However, this does not make the crime "OK" or mean that we shouldn't try to enforce the laws against it. (Yes, and I'm aware that whether or not the fetus is a person is one of the issues under debate. However, this doesn't affect my point above -- once we even start to consider the @i(possibility) of victims, we need to use better criteria than "some people will do it anyway".) > Or, work on making sure the pregnant woman is presented with ALL > alternatives, INCLUDING abortion by an unbiased third party? (By > definition, pro-lifers are not unbiased) By definition, pro-choicers are not unbiased, since they make the assumption that it is OK to kill the baby. You can't be just "a little pregnant", and a baby can't be just "a little dead." For the sake of fairness, can we make the assumption that it is OK to kill the woman for the baby's convenience? You did say ALL alternatives. :-< Thomas Newton
mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (03/20/85)
From: tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) >For the sake of fairness, can we make >the assumption that it is OK to kill the woman for the baby's convenience? >You did say ALL alternatives. :-< Some of the "pro-lifers" have no qualms with that at all. (No smily.) Folks, the "when does life begin" debate (?) will never be resolved on this net, because some of you firmly believe that the fetus is human from the moment of conception and some of us believe that no matter what the nature of the fetus, it doesn't have the right to act as a parasite on the mother. (I don't think too many pro-choicers would have problems with an "abortion" that simply transplanted the fetus to another host, though, if such a thing came into existence.) Let's can this line of argument. Anyone knowledgeable about medicine know how likely such a development is? -Dragon -- UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (03/20/85)
I can't stand it any more! Mikki Barry says that the issue of convenience is irrelevant to the the abortion discussion. That is just a lot of hogwash. Convenience is the heart and soul of the abortion issue. If it weren't for the self-centered, egotistical attitudes which prevail amoung our most vocal pro-choice people, the abortion rate would drop by 90%. All I hear is "What's in it for me?" The statistics have shown (don't ask, they have been printed in dozens of previous articles) that the overwhelming reason for abortions today are for convenience, not for reasons of rape, incest, malformation, or danger to the mother. The use of abortion as just another convenient birth control method is what the furor is all about. If, and I say a big IF, abortion is ever accepted as "just another birth control method," where does it lead us? Wouldn't it be convenient to make euthanasia public policy? Euthanasia is NOT murder by definition (look it up). It is a mercy killing. Wouldn't it be merciful to euthanise all of those old folks living out their lives in abject poverty? This is a common argument for abortion isn't it? "We need abortion to help those at the poverty level keep their numbers down." In my opinion, abortion is murder when it is used as a birth control method. Further, it is blatently racist when it is foisted on the people at the lower end of the economic scale. Convenience is not an abortion issue indeed! Convenience is the ugly issue that keeps the abortion controversy alive. If you choose to ignore it then you have no idea of what is happening out there in the real world. When even the abortion clinics report that 90% of all abortions were not necessary, then you are not listening to the 1.5 million voices that will now never be heard. T. C. Wheeler
barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (03/21/85)
WARNING T.C. WHEELER - YOU ARE AGREEING WITH KEN!
Now on to the article...
What I perhaps did not clarify in my previous posting was that the way the
law is written, abortions are legal regardless of the reason the woman
wants one. Changing it to make aboritons legal only when certain people
think they should be would be difficult at best. Also hypocritical.
It's ok to end a human life (as pro-lifers think of it) when we decide
its ok, but not ok just because you want to *not* have a child.
Before you flame away, I agree that abortions done for birth control reasons
are not a good thing in this society where contraception is readily available.
BUT, there is a real problem here....many health insurance companies (Blue
Cross of NH for one) that will NOT cover contraception, but WILL cover
abortion. How come? If I was too poor to afford $10 per month for pills,
and thought I was doing the rhythm method right, and got pregnant, my abortion
(if I chose to have one), would be covered. This is just offered as an
example, not an "excuse".
I am not sure how medicaid works, but in NH abortion is not covered at all,
(except if it can be shown that the woman will DIE if she carries to term,
not allowed in the case of rape or incest), so the argument of keeping down
the poverty level doesn't wash in NH, since the woman has to find money
somewhere if she wants an abortion. The ironic thing in NH was that there have
been only 3 abortions funded in the past 5 years by medicaid, and when a recent
bill came before the legislature to stop funding abortions for the woman who
would die if she carried to term, many "pro-lifers" (and I use the term
loosely since they don't care about the life of the woman in this case (not
an indictment on all pro lifers, ok?)) flocked to the state house to support
the bill, EVEN THOUGH IT MEANT NH LOST ALL FEDERAL FUDNING FOR MEDICAID.
So money is not the issue. I don't know if medicaid will cover contraception,
but can you see the bind a poor woman is in if it doesn't? No contraception,
no abortion, so she becomes a baby factory. And how do those babies grow up?
Why, in poverty of course. How can the woman of a poverty stricken mother
be expected to know about contraception if her mother doesn't, and it isn't
presented to her in the schools, and if it is economically impossible for her
to get it. This is why there are still many unsafe abortions going on, and
still many women dying from them.
This is why I hoped we could work together to make aboritons unnecessary.
It is far easier to take a pill, or get an IUD or diaphragm (or cerviceal
cap if people would stop picketing the only center in NH that has them)
than to go through an abortion. We just have to make it available and
understood. There will be abortions whether or not the laws change.
Wouldn't it be better to let those that happen be safe, while cutting
down on their numbers?
Mikki Barry
p.s. I am intentionally ignoring discussion on euthanasia of the elderly.
It is an irrelevant argument.bmt@we53.UUCP ( B. M. Thomas ) (03/24/85)
>I must wonder about a doctor who would leave something that is living and >breathing on its own to die. I have never heard of this happening, and having >relatives that worked in hospitals (in delivery rooms), at least at these >hospitals, doctors DO NOT leave anything to die. Second or third trimester >abortions are rare. It is SO rare that an abortion could have survived on >its own outside of the mother that it shouldn't even used as issue to ban >all abortions. The cases of a child being born severely deformed and the >parents and doctors deciding to withhold treatment is completely different >than a fetus living after an abortion. Not true, Mikki. There are at least a thousand such cases a year. That's about three a day. There are a number of cases that have come to court where the doctor did not simply leave the baby to die, but actually strangled it. The medical community covered their own, however and no convictions were returned. Let's stick to the truth.
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (03/26/85)
[..............] >Before you flame away, I agree that abortions done for birth control reasons >are not a good thing in this society where contraception is readily available. >BUT, there is a real problem here....many health insurance companies (Blue >Cross of NH for one) that will NOT cover contraception, but WILL cover >abortion. How come? If I was too poor to afford $10 per month for pills, >and thought I was doing the rhythm method right, and got pregnant, my abortion >(if I chose to have one), would be covered. This is just offered as an >example, not an "excuse". BRAVO Mikki, this is the kind of thing that I have been getting at. As a pro-choice person, I definately feel that the system is screwed up when it is more economically attractive to have an abortion over using contraception. THIS is the sort of thing we should be fighting to help minimize abortions. Making abortion illegal merely sweeps it under the rug. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
mike@dolqci.UUCP (Mike Stalnaker) (03/27/85)
> >I must wonder about a doctor who would leave something that is living and > >breathing on its own to die. I have never heard of this happening, and having > >relatives that worked in hospitals (in delivery rooms), at least at these > >hospitals, doctors DO NOT leave anything to die. Second or third trimester > >abortions are rare. It is SO rare that an abortion could have survived on > >its own outside of the mother that it shouldn't even used as issue to ban > >all abortions. The cases of a child being born severely deformed and the > >parents and doctors deciding to withhold treatment is completely different > >than a fetus living after an abortion. > > Not true, Mikki. There are at least a thousand such cases a year. That's about > three a day. > > There are a number of cases that have come to court where the > doctor did not simply leave the baby to die, but actually strangled it. The > medical community covered their own, however and no convictions were returned. > > Let's stick to the truth. Let's also stick to real proportions. I'm not saying I condone those ~~thousand cases a year, but how many abortions are performed in this country each year????? That's what Mikki was saying, that 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are RARE ** not ** nonexistant. Again, I'm not saying that I agree with them, so please no flames on that one. I've been watching this discussion go back and forth for a while now, and while I realize it's an emotional issue on both sides, I think the whole discussion would be better served if people kept their facts straight! Like Mikki said recently in another article, we would be better to figure out ways to show people all the alternatives **before** an unwanted pregnancy occured. -- Mike Stalnaker UUCP:{decvax!grendel,cbosgd!seismo}!dolqci!mike AT&T:202-376-2593 USPS:601 D. St. NW, Room 7122, Washington, DC, 20213 McCoy: "Shaddup Spock! We're Rescuing you!" Spock: "Why thank you, 'Captain McCoy'"