pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/12/84)
This is a response to Alex Tselis' wife's response to me. I have forgotten her name and she didn't sign it to this article. I have broken it up into four smaller articles. }>For the sake of argument let's assume that the fact that many }>children are "unadoptable" justifies abortion. } }Okay, but let's be clear about *why* their being "unadoptable" justifies }abortion. Babies are not "unadoptable" because there aren't sufficient }resources in this country (at least) to take care of them; they're }unadoptable because there isn't sufficient *will* in this country }to take care of them. Lots of childless couples love children very }much and are more than happy to open their homes up to them-- }provided, of course, that they're babies, white & in absolutely }perfect health (it is my understanding that even a very minor, treatable }birth defect such as one that discolors a portion of the face is sufficient }to render a baby "unadoptable.") I have a hard time believing that the baby must be absolutely perfect to be adoptable. If a pregnant woman wants to place her baby for adoption she can be matched with a couple who will commit to pay for her medical bills. The prospective parents are more than willing to do this because they want the baby to be healthy. So there's less chance for birth defects. But the woman has to know what help is available to her. It's tough to place your baby for adoption, even if you want to. It's true that black and bi-racial babies are harder to place, but many adoption agencies still prefer placing them in similiar homes where they will "fit in". That's not to say they discourage it, just that they do consider the environment that the child will be growing up in. The waiting list for infants here is 7 years. This even with private adoption agencies with less red tape to go through. The legal adoption system in this country works against those who want to adopt. Ask someone who has tried. The fastest way is if you know someone who knows someone who wants to give their baby to *you*. ( Courts usually won't let unrelated couples adopt a baby who's mother they know). Even then the legal complications are no small obstacle. I see no lack of "will" to take care of them, more of the lack of means. The hassles involved discourage many, regardless of the baby's "adoptability" by your standards. I will agree that adoptability criterion need to be broadened, but not only in the minds of people wanting to adopt and I don't see abortion as a help to the problem. If anything it is an accomodation of it. If we can get rid of "unadoptables" before they are born, is that any incentive to care about them when they are? }Children in this country do not grow up without food because there }is not enough food to go around--that happens because not enough }people care enough about children to see that all are well fed. }Children do not grow up abused or neglected because there are not }enough people and resources to care for them better--this happens }because, again, the *will* to make this country a reasonable place }for children to live is lacking. I think justifying abortion in this criterion is to accomodate such an attitude, even encourage it. }With so many children who are already alive who need all of our }love and attention and care, I do not see how it is right to }bring *unwanted* children into the world. There are plenty }right now who very much need someone to want them--until }we take care of *them,* what right do we have to add to their }number? I'm afraid that we have already added to their number once a woman is pregnant. I know you don't believe that, but you are not giving any reasons why you don't consider the unborn to be living humans. You haven't discussed that issue. }>But it only justifies }>it *in those cases*. The abortion of a child somebody wants is }>still totally unjustified. } }How does any pregnant woman or especially teenage girl (since }her children are more likely to have birth defects) know that }her baby is going to be sufficiently perfect to be "adoptable?" If a child is "more likely of have birth defects" you would treat it as if it definetly does and reccomend that it be aborted? If you think birth defects are good criteria for aborting, then I think it would be more human of you to advocate that we wait until we are sure that the child has a defect and is unadoptable then kill them. Why should the significant percentage of those born without defects also have to die? Is that a fair application of the ideal of "choice"? } }>So then is the answer to allow abortion }>only for the mothers of such children? I think that this }>line would generally fall along ethinic and racial boundries. We would }>end up aborting the children of racial minorities way out of proportion }>to their representation in society. } }It seems as if you are suggesting that women who suffer unwanted }pregnancies should be forced to serve as breeders for predominantly }white, middle class couples, simply because those couples want }to be able to adopt a certain kind of child. No. My point was that you were suggesting that "adoptable" children die because many others are "unadoptable". You're avoiding my point. That is that you cannot justify abortion on demand because some are "unadoptable". Also if these unadoptable ones are disproportionate with respect to race, then your criterion carries an inherent racial bias. }>Does the degree of "wantedness" }>of a human individual by others determine their value as human beings? } }I'm sorry, I just don't view embryos or young fetuses as human }beings--and it doesn't matter whether they're wanted or not. You're getting closer to the main issue here. What determines if a being is human, then? }My sister-in-law is pregnant with my first niece/nephew who is very }much a wanted child. But if my sister-in-law's health was such }that she & my brother had to choose between her life & the fetus', }it would be my sister-in-law who would live. You are talking }as if every human & potential human had the same absolute }value to his/er life--I am saying that when one chooses between }the living and the unborn, the living have a greater value. No, judging between the life of the mother and fetus (if it comes to that) is not the issue here. I was making that point above that whether or not a person is "wanted" by another makes no difference as to whether that person should live or die. In cases where pregnancy threatens that mother there is often no choice but to do an abortion. Even Catholic hospitals that don't do elective abortions or even sterilization recognise this. The attitude there though is that they have lost a patient (the unborn child) with the associated grief. } }>I would be nice if everyone were wanted, but I don't think the fact }>that they're not makes anyone less human, less deserving of their own }>chance at life. }> }>I think that if children of minorities are unadoptable it shows that }>in the values of many there is a racial bias that is in itself, wrong. } }I could not agree with you more. Yet we disagree on what the answer should include. }>It seems to me that you are suggesting that we accommodate that bias }>by allowing abortion in such cases. } }No, I am not because I am suggesting that we allow abortion in all }cases in which the pregnant woman wishes it--you were constructing the }hypothetical situation in which some women served as breeders for }others. I did not construct that situation. You did. Then you imputed it to me. Forcing women to be breeders implies that I force them to get pregnant. More along these lines later. }>But what about abortion potentially }>adoptable babies? It seems we have to allow it there too so as not }>to be discriminatory in our abortion policy even though abortion in }>such cases would be totally unjustified by your criterion. What should }>happen in cases like that in Indiana where an infant with Down's Syndrome }>was allowed to starve to death at its parent's wishes when there were }>couples wanting to adopt it? } }I have answered the bulk of this paragraph earlier. Re: the IN case. }I think you are understating the dilemma that the parents of that baby }faced, although I don't think that I would have made the same decision that }they did. However, that was also not an }abortion case. As for the people who wished to adopt that one, }publicized baby, didn't anyone tell them that there are thousands }of much less severely handicapped infants and children languishing }in institutions? How sincere were these people? I never said it was an abortion case. We were talking about "unadoptable" children (because of defects) justifying abortion. The baby was publicized because it was being starved to death for its defect. Do the children in institutions face the same fate? Are all those children really up of adoption? It doesn't make sense to infer that these people weren't sincere because they wouldn't adopt children with lesser defects who are not facing forced starvation. If I'm not mistaken at least one of the couples had a Down's Syndrome baby of their own. You seem to be forcing this particular incident of fit your generalizations. }>What does this attitude do for the handicapped and the illegitimate }>and poor children and adults that are with us today? Are we telling }>them that it would have been better if they had been aborted (irrespective }>of whether or not they are/were adopted)? } }I am saying that it would be better if we pay attention to *them* }and stop ignoring them in favor of fetuses. We can never change }their past, but there's a lot we can do for their present & }future. There are people paying attention to them, including people who are prolife. Below you claim that you don't require an equal level of committment from prolife individuals to every human need. But clearly here you are telling people who are disagreeing with you on whether or not the fetus is human that they ought to be doing something you think is more important. Without even discussing the issue of fetal rights you're asking them to agree with you on that position anyway by diverting their energies from it. The unborn are as important as other people in the prolife view. And NO ONE recognises the rights of the fetus except prolife people. This seems to be an attempt to divert prolifers from a cause that they exculsively support. Some guilt trip. Blame their involvement in the prolife movement for other human problems in the world. *** continued *** -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/12/84)
}... }However, if you don't think the government is properly involved }in feeding people, why do you think its proper role is to }force women to give birth, especially when (as I think you would }be the first to acknowledge) it cannot force those same }women to *care* for their children? "Forcing" (how pro choice people love that word) a woman not to have her unborn child killed just because she has gotten pregnant and doesn't want to be. Is that what you mean? Are we playing word games? Actions of people are restricted as a rule where the exercise of those actions end the life of another. Women do not normally get pregnant against their will (See below regarding rape). No, the government can't force people to take good care of their children, by why does this make a difference as to whether those children should be allowed to live at all? } }>This assumes that parenthood starts at birth. }>You can't argue with that assumption as a given because that }>is the crux of the abortion issue. } }I can & do assume that the nurturing responsibilities of parents }begin at birth, & from birth on, the kind of commitment the parents feel }toward their child is critical to that child. Pregnant women can }best nurture their fetuses by taking care of themselves (which is }something I would hope all women would do in any event)--the }unique, nurturing role of parents does not start *until* the child }is born. No the child is nurtured by its mother before birth. It is for this that some call it a parasite. Saying people aren't parents until the child is actually born doesn't make sense. If my wife and I concieve a child she is its mother and I (who else?!!) have fathered it. The actual birth of the child is incidental to the fact that we are its parents. }>Pregnancy is only involuntary as the result of rape. } }I must say, Mr. Dubuc, that you have been one of the kindest }and most thoughtful anti-abortionists to respond to my article }(Mr. Hummel was the other), but this, Mr. Dubuc, is absolutely untrue }and beneath you. }Pregnancy is FREQUENTLY involuntary. Birth control devices can }& do fail. What about all of those women who thought they were }protecting themselves from pregnancy by using the Dalkon shield IUD? }What about those women who took those fake birth control pills? }Aside from "mechanical failures," people can simply make inadvertent }mistakes. Pregnancy is OFTEN an accident. Would you make the same kind }of claim for any other accident? Is every plane or car crash that }involves human error somehow *not* an accident? Pregnancy is frequently undesired. But it is an undesired consequence of a volitional action on the part of the couple. Haveing sex is an activity that always presents the possibility of pregnancy. Part of being an adult in our society is taking responsibility for the result of our own actions. Sex cannot be regarded as other activities that never present the possibility of pregnancy. That is what I feel you are trying to do when you say that pro-lifers would "force" pregnancy on women. The fact that a result of our action is not intended does not necessarily remove culpability from a responsible adult. People who use birth control should know that their particular method is not 100% effective. Pregnancy is not an inevitable result of sex, but it is a result that can be reasonably expected. I am not saying that those who engage in sex always want to get pregnant (I think you must know that). Responsibility must be accepted even for accidents. Last march I was involved in an auto accident that could have hurt me and the other driver seriously. My car was totalled. But it was my fault. I pulled out from a stop sign without seeing the other car. The results of my actions were surely unintended, but I still received a citation and my insurance still had to pay damages. }And what about pregnancies that are caused by total ignorance? }Teenagers in this country are systematically kept from understanding how their }bodies work. *MANY* teenagers really believe that they can't }get pregnant if they're standing up, if it's their first time, }if they use a Coca-Cola douche, if they use any kind of a douche, }if they use spermicide the morning after, if they insert their }birth control pills in their vaginas, etc. Their ignorance is }absolutely appalling and something many of the most avid }anti-abortionists wish to *promote*. Phyllis Schlafly has }announced that her next nationwide goal will be to *eliminate* }sex ed from the classroom. You make a good point here, but your reasoning still does not compel abortion as the answer. Today's teens are less ignorant about the consequences of sexual activity than in the past. You make a good case for sex education, but not for abortion. Do you expect teens to become more responsible with regard to sex by removing all the unwanted consequences of their actions? I think it was your husband who said that he personally thought that teens weren't ready for sex. Why not teach them that in sex ed? "No", comes the retort from many pro-choicers, "that would be imposing morality, we need to let them have the choice". They aren't old enought to bear the responsibility of pregnancy, so the answer is to give them free contraceptives and abortion without parent's consent. Don't you think that this kind of thing teaches them a certain morality--that sex is fine because you can avoid the consequences, and it doesn't matter what your parents think. You make a great deal of the notion that pregnancy is much more risky for teens. So is abortion. Minors need parental consent in many states to get their ears peirced or to be given an aspirin at school. Is abortion more trivial than these? One reason for teen pregnancy that you neglected to mention (and it's a very significant one) is moral. Many teenage girls won't use birth control at all because "nice girls don't plan to have sex". Given the irresponsibility that goes with their youth and characterizes many things teens do, are they far from wrong? Teens don't understand relationships between people well enough to regard sex responsibly. They are much more likely to treat sex as a game or recreation (any partner will do) than adults. This attitude is generally recognised as being destructive, leading to a lot of problems for adults. How much more so for teens? One thing you're going to have to do to get around this moral inhibition to birth control is inculcate a certain morality in them; to teach them that sex is right for them, that its OK to plan to do it. It may be that they are fooling themselves in thinking that they won't have sex but the fact remains that they are doing so to avoid a *moral* dilemma. So you either tell them that their morals are right and that they should not only not plan to have sex but refuse the suggestion of it, or you tell them that their morals are wrong, that it is right for them to have sex. The latter does less to prevent teen pregnancy and a lot to encourage sex (with the irresponsible attitude that teens can't help but have because of their lack of maturity). } }>Nobody is saying that voluntary }>sex has only to do with pregnancy, but you can't assume it has nothing }>to do with it either. Is the desire to have uncommitted sex really }>the motive behind legal abortion? } }Is the desire to punish people who do have uncommitted sex really the }motive behind making abortion illegal? If so, you're using children }as pawns with which to punish their parents. And using children }as pawns is not the same thing as believing that fetuses have }some kind of absolute right to survival. "punish" -- another word pro-choicers love. No, irresponsiblity insn't a crime, but it does have consequences. You're avoiding another question. There is no absolute right to survival implied for the fetus, only one that is on par with other humans and is above the convenience and irresponsible acts of others. I am arguing against null rights for the fetus not for absolute rights. I think you must know that. }I really think that a lot of people do want to force women to }bear children as punishment and I think the statistics back }me up. If fetuses should be saved no matter what, then it }shouldn't matter whether the pregnant woman has been raped or is the }victim of incest. But, according to a poll published by THE }NEW YORK TIMES, about 35% more people support abortions for }victims of rape and/or incest than support abortion on demand. }If you want to punish people who have uncommitted sex, then }you should be honest about it, you should find a way that doesn't }use children for your purposes, and you should find a way that punishes }men as much as women. Statistics don't indicate anything with regard to the motives people have. Again you are setting up the straw man of absolute rights for the fetus. No one has absolute rights. But does uncommitted sex make the fetus deserving of death? }>When they don't give them the choice of whether or not to live we }>but them in big trouble. Are you saying that because parents make }>most choices for young children they have the right to decide if }>they should die? } }I am not saying that parents should be allowed to choose whether or }not they can kill their living children, but that they should }be allowed to choose whether they have any in the first place. Avoiding the issue of whether or not the fetus is their "living children", again. Everyone has the choice of whether or not to have them in the first place. The problem comes in always "having their cake and eating it too". } }>But that assumption is thrown out when the child's health is }>endangered by the parent. } }Child, yes; fetus, no. Aren't you even going to say why? } }>If they had the choice between that and death? Are there any }>other choices? The truth of the matter is that no one really }>knows with any given child how well they will value their life }>in any given situation. Why are you making that decision for }>them before they even have a chance to make it for themselves? }>No one ever gets to choose where they are born. Yet here you }>are acting as if that choice were possible for the child, you }>insert your own conclusion as its decision. } }I agree that I cannot speak for all fetuses who were aborted, but }neither can you. We could agree to disagree & turn our attention }toward children who are alive and need our attention. You seem to }think it is more important to worry about fetuses. I don't pretend to speak for fetuses, only to give them a chance to make their own assesment of their life. They deserve choice in the matter. No one can force them to live if they decide not to (a tragedy in itself). But you *are* making that decision for them. You can't speak for *any* given fetus. Neither can I, that's the point. *** continued *** -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/12/84)
}>It is only consistent for pro-lifers to care just as much for the born }>as the unborn and I think, as a people, they do. Not all pro-life people }>picket clinics. Some work in pregnancy distress centers like my wife }>and Liz. Some are involved in combatting child abuse (or did you think }>only pro-choice people did that?) } }When Jesse Helms & the Moral Majority give up all idea of their infamous }"Family Protection Act" *or* when the bulk of anti-abortionists }disavow that group, I will believe that anti-abortionists care }about child abuse. Until then, your efforts to combat child abuse }are countered by your allies' efforts to *promote* it. Well, to disavow the the Moral Majority's effort completely would mean to reject its efforts in creating hundreds of "pregnancy distress centers" in this country. Here is an example of the artificial way that you neatly divide the prolife camp and expect me to reject completely the efforts of whole groups, throwing out the good with the bad. I don't make devils out of Helms or Fallwell or anyone else. I prefer to be critical of individual actions. When you suggest throwing out the Family Protection Act, you should at least give reasons. (Or would you like us to follow your advice blindly?--not a good pro-choice position.) When you accuse prolifers of being allied with efforts to promote child abuse, you'd better back it up with some reasoning and facts. } }>and some are helping in prisions where }>a lot of those kids end up (like Charles Colson -- I know he's pro-life). }>His Prision Fellowship organization is more active in meeting the needs }>of prisoners and pushing for criminal justice reform than many I can }>think of. You seem to require an equal level of involvement in all }>these areas from every pro-life individual (at least the ones who picket }>PP -- Was Liz one of them?) } }No, I don't "require" an "equal level of involvement." My point is that }making moral decisions almost invariably involves setting moral }priorities. I cannot understand how someone could think that a }fetus is more of a moral priority than a living human being. }I don't think anti-abortionists should "care just as much for }the born as for the unborn;" I think they should care a lot more }for the born. But you have given no reason that they should. As I said before, prolifers are the only ones who care for the born. You would have them turn away from that and adhere to your priorities without giving a reason. This only seems to be a couch for the opinion that no one should care for the unborn. Would you demand that animal rights activists give up their priorities for yours? How would you order other human life priorities (other than abortion) for us? Is child abuse deserving of more attention than helping the handicapped, elderly, minorities? What is at the top? If you are going to play one concern against another why don't you tell us what is *the* most important thing to be concerned with so that we can all drop everything else and rush over and solve that problem. }>Do you have the same standard for yourself? } }I think that my standards are more consistent than yours & }I think that I take greater pains to openly disassociate myself }from people whose values are radically different than my own. }I have not, for instance, quoted Margaret Sanger because she }believed in eugenics and was an elitist, & I do not buy that }aspect of her theories. You commend youself for not quoting someone you disagree with? Who have I quoted that I should disagree with? } }>After all your burden should be lighter. You need care only about the }>"living", not the unborn. We have to consider the unborn a subset of the }>living. All the areas you mention are important. But if the unborn }>are included in the "living" then they are equally important. } }Again, I disagree with the word "equally." I am only stating the pro-life postion here: Equal righs for the unborn, not null rights. }>In a subsequent article to this one you make a plea for fraternal discussion }>of this issue. } }No, my husband did (I know it's confusing). He's a nicer person than I }am, which is no doubt evidenced by the fact that he married me. I still hope you value your husband's advice in this case. You could help the confusion by signing your articles. In a response to T.C. Wheeler you belittled him for being thus confused (or was that your husband?). }>It's a very worthwile goal, but you need to help too. }>Perhaps, from your own standpoint, you can see how hard this is. }>It seems that you have used your experience with name calling, clinic }>bombing "pro-lifers" } }And my knowledge of the spokespeople of the anti-abortion movement. Who? Name names so we can see how accurate your knowledge is. }>to brow beat Liz in this case. Fraternity requires }>that we treat each other as individuals and not bring the "sins" of other }>people on them. }Ms. Allen not only did not disassociate herself from the major }spokespeople of the anti-abortion movement, she cited their }propaganda uncritically. How was I to know that she was somehow }different? }However, if I was rude, I apologize. Apologize to Liz; not me. You have given no good excuse for not treating her as an individual and concentrating on her opinion. You expressed no intrest in hearing it. You didn't even say what was wrong with the film, only launched some propaganda of your own. That film was made by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, (author of "Abortion America"). He came over hard from the pro-choice camp. He co-founded the National Abortion Rights Action League and once operated the largest abortion clinic in the world, in New York City. I would think that what he has to say about the abortion issue is worth considering. If you don't agree with the interpretation of the film say why it is wrong, don't just blame Liz for believing in it as if she should know better than to oppose your views. Give her more credit for intelligence. Give us all more credit. }>It is hard to convey a civil tone in writing, especially }>on issues like this. I have been read as being angry when I thought }>I was making an effort to sound reasonable. Clearly I need more practice, }>but I have learned to give others the benefit of my doubts. } }As I said before, Mr. Dubuc, you & Mr. Hummel have been, by far, }the most thoughtful and civil respondents who were anti-abortionists, }and my husband and I appreciate your time & effort. With all due appreciation, I can't accept my part of this complement. You place me above others who have responded critically to your views and I can't accept that position. I know Liz better than you and I consider more thoughtful and civil than I. I try to respond to what people actually say in their articles and not impute to them beliefs that they have not expressed. I think Liz does that better than anyone. Had you read anything she had written *before* the article to which you responded. That wasn't her first one, you know. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/12/84)
} }>What good has abortion on demand done for child abuse statistics? }>Can you show us? Is there any correlation between how much }>parents want the pregnanacy and how much they want the child after }>it's born? Two can play this came of inference also. The free }>availability of abortion might actually encourage attitudes that }>foster child abuse. Once the child is born the "choice" of parent- }>hood is suddenly gone. When the going gets rough there might be }>temption to think that this loss of choice is unfair. After all, }>they didn't really know what to expect, and if they had only }>thought about it a few months earlier they could have nipped }>their problems in the bud. It's easy for resentment to build }>against the child. If the child is abused, it's taken away }>and society supports it. There you have an abused child that }>was "wanted" during pregnancy. You may rightly argue that I }>have presented no data to support this connection. But that is }>my point. You have presented none to support yours either. }>Has child abuse really become less of a problem in the 13 years }>that we have had abortion on demand? } }I know that child abuse has been an under-reported & unacknowledged }problem for a long, long time. There simply are not good statistics }available for *today* much less for 10 or 20 years ago. }The most common one available for today is that child abuse }exists in one out of six homes. Although child abuse certainly }happens in well-to-do and middle income households, a sudden }drop in income is frequently taken out on children, which is why }recessions always lead to an increase in the number of child }abuse cases. There is also proportionately more child abuse in houses }that have lower incomes. This says nothing about how abortion helps child abuse. Maybe you will admit that you can't use child abuse statistics to justify abortion? }What *is* clearly set forth in statistics is that teenage }mothers generally make bad mothers--nearly 70% of them abuse }(or so severely neglect their children that it's counted as abuse) }their children, and contrary to your assertion, I think most }teenage pregnancies are involuntary. Teenagers & other poor women }do not have access (or have limited access) to abortions for }financial reasons. Teenagers and other poor women also have limited }access to information about birth control for economic reasons. }Therefore, while there is a correlation among being poor, having }children one does not want, and abusing one's children, I can't }say that it's a cause and effect relationship, no. }But I think our first obligation is to the children who are here, }and being abused now--not to fetuses who may well end up in }the same position. A more useful statistic would be what percentage of abused children are those of teenage mothers? How feasible is that adoption alternative to pregnant teens? The legal complications need to be smoothed out so as to offer less of an obstacle both for the woman and the prospective parents. Also, how does abortion help the problem? You seemed to be stressing lots of cause and effect relationships in your other article. I think my scenario above is as reasonable as any of yours. I don't see why abortion on demand could not also contribute to child abuse. What logic compels the parents to be "forced" into parenthood by the event of birth? After all they could just as easily maintian that the consequences of their decision to give birth are unwanted (now that they know what they are). What if their child is "unadoptable"? } }>Does all this really mean that people are wrong to oppose abortion? }>You might argue rightly that they are somewhat hyprocritical, but }>what a hypocrite says may still be right. My wife and I can answer }>"yes" to many the above questions and know many pro-life people }>who could say "yes" to the rest of them. Partially because of }>that we don't have time to picket clinics (though some have). } }There seem to be at least two major anti-abortion movements in }this country. There is the vocal one--that pickets and/or bombs }clinics; associates itself with pro-nuclear, pro-military groups; }lobbies against disseminating information about contraceptives; }lobbies against tougher child-abuse laws; is blatantly misogynist; }lobbies against regulating industries whose hazardous wastes }cause spontanteous abortions and/or birth defects; lobbies against }government-sponsored programs to nourish poor, pregnant women; etc., You had better name names. What group(s) does all this? How do you expect us to separate ourselves from them? (See below) }etc.--and there is the quieter one. You say that your anti-abortionist }friends are not like the noisy one. If that is so, then why }do you allow the current anti-abortion lobby to speak for you? }Why do you not disassociate yourself from them? Loudly? People will not }respect a message broadcast by blatant hypocrites, or at least, }they won't respect it for long. I'm afraid it is very unrealistic to dichotomize the prolife movement in this way. Which lobby are you talking about? How do you know I let them speak for me? These two groups seem to be your own invention and you seem to be associating different people with them as you see fit. } }>If you are pro-choice, how may of your own questions can you answer? } }Well, I've only been married for two months. And my husband and }I currently can't even live in the same state. Just how many kids }do you think we should have adopted by now? My point was that }if you're going to force people to have kids, then *you* ought to }be willing to take care of them. And you ought to be able to show how }willing and able you *are* to take care of such kids by showing that }you've essentially done everything necessary for the ones who came before. }I've never advocated forcing anyone to have kids. Did you consider the individual circumstances of those you blame as being hypocrites? I don't think so. You only consisidered their general philosophy (anti-abortion). I've never advocated forcing anyone to have kids either that is a motive that you impute to the prolife philosophy. } }>How much help the Planned Parenthood give to couples who *want* to }>have children rather than prevent them? } }Planned Parenthood is not & has never claimed to be a center for total }gynecological care. Its primary mission *is* to deliver birth control }devices/information to women. The other kinds of things it does }(PAP smears, VD tests & info on pre-natal care) are low-cost, }low tech services that PP can easily offer in addition to its }birth control mission. Fertility clinics are fairly specialized, }expensive and often high tech operations. You are essentially }criticizing PP for not being something that it never claimed }to be--it makes about as much sense to hassle MIT for not offering }a good liberal arts education. I think you better look into the history of PP a little bit harder. They used to have policy against abortion. If their purpose has always been to help prevent children then the least they could to is call themselves "Planned Non-parenthood" (only half joking here). I was not claiming that PP should assume the operations of a fertility clinic (those are for people having trouble getting pregnant). Just that they should offer a little help in normal cases where a couple needs advice on how to prepare for having children. }>I know a woman who went }>to PP for birth control and received help with that (and we all help }>them with part of our tax money don't we?) } }No. Are you saying PP receives no federal funding? You are wrong. They emphasize that federal money does not go to fund their abortion efforts, but it certainly helps them thrive while doing that on the side. A recent measure was passed to prevent organizations that recieve federal funds from using that money to support their lobbying efforts. PP was one of those organizations. They vigorously opposed it, needless to say. } }>but when she wanted to get }>pregnant they told her she was on her own. Is this offering equal }>support for both choices? The PP clinic here provides not-for-profit }>abortions but in cases where people *want* to have children and }>have problems they are on their own ... and they are the "pro-lifer's" }>problem. } }I hate to burden you with the views of your vocal anti-abortion friends }throughout the country, but a lot of anti-abortionists get pretty }bent out of shape with fertility clinics also--some of the techno- }logical innovations that these clinics have pioneered to }help the infertile are highly disturbing to anti-abortionists. }I will leave it to them to explain why to you ('cause I don't }know), but I don't think a lot of anti-abortionists see }fertility problems as their own. Don't bother with giving me this burden, then. I have no friends who are against fertility clinics. If you want to discuss specific innovations of these clinics instead of being vague, then by all means do so. Here you seem to be implying that pro-lifers are against couples wanting to get pregnant. Seems funny since before you said that they "force" women to be pregnant. } }>Or are we going to help them with the attitude that "it }>would be best if you had had an abortion but..." You do very well }>to point out the uncaring attitude of many pro-lifers but don't you }>think these issues cut both ways for pro-choicers too? } }Who said that people who were pro-choice were against fertility }clinics? Most of the protest comes from anti-abortionists; not from us. You introduced the notion of being agains fertility clinics. Nice, the way you've twisted the argument here. To untangle it a bit, my point was that how much concern is there among pro-choice people for those who make the choice to keep their children? It seems to me that, implicit in your attitude toward teenage mothers, poor mothers, and anyone else in a difficult pregnancy situation, there is the belief that abortion is the "best choice" for such people. Consequently, if they won't get an abortion, they are the pro-lifer's problem. What if the teenage mother doesn't want an abortion? Do you help her with that choice? If you are really pro-choice you should. Are pro-choicers doing anything to make options other than abortion more available? *** continued *** -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd