emh@bonnie.UUCP (Edward M. Hummel) (12/04/84)
> What seems singularly absent from all the discussion of > abortion is any mention of *children,* the invitable result of > non-aborted pregnancies. ... > And the truth of the > matter is that aborting a fetus may well be in best interests > of the *child* as well as of the parent. How many children > would *choose* to be born into a home in which they weren't > wanted? How many children would *choose* to be born into a > home in which they'd be abused? ... > Let's not dwell on the pain & fear that children who are physically > &/or sexually abused undergo. Let's just look at *their* > choices. > First, you can stick around & hope you learn to duck/run well > enough that you survive. This option does not work well for > small children or babies, but then very little works well for > small children or babies who are abused. (And they are the > ones who are most likely to suffer when the mothers are > teenagers and/or if they were unwanted. I think the incidence > of child abuse among teenage mothers is 70%.) Lots of > younger children simply get killed because they can't run &/or > duck. So before you screech in horror too much about how > *abortions* are performed, look at autopsy reports of abused children > & find out what *one* of the alternatives to abortion really is. > Are you seriously prepared to argue that it hurts *less* to > have one's skull bashed in *after* one is born? ... > Unborn fetuses are terribly easy to love--they are > silent, relatively undemanding & "live" for only nine months. It's children > who are difficult to love on an ongoing basis; it's children > who require a lifelong commitment and it's children who are > being *routinely* abused and neglected in this country. Therefore, > it's also *children* whom we should be thinking of when we think > of abortion. The moral issue is not "do I have a right to an > abortion," but "do I have the right to bring a child into the > world that I know I cannot take care of properly for 18 > years & for whom no one else will take responsibility?" > And people like Ms. Allen seem unwilling to make > this a decent country for *children* to live in. ... > I'm not just pro-choice because I think the right to an abortion is a > necessity; I'm pro-life because I care about the *living* more than > I care about the unborn. And until I see the anti-abortionists listen > to the very audible screams of living children, I'm not going to have > too much empathy for their nightmares about the alleged "silent screams" > of fetuses. Some interesting points are brought out in that posting, but I think the argument that abortion prevents future suffering is fundamentally flawed. Abortion also prevents a future geniuses although, perhaps, to a lesser extent. Two wrongs do not make a right! Child abuse, malnutrition, lousy school systems, etc. are terrible things, but the cure, hopefully, is not more abortions. These problems need to be solved separately, both with and without state aid. Abortion may indeed be a practical solution to many problems, both personal and social, but the essential issues are moral and legal. Ed Hummel {allegra,cmcl2,ihnp4,...}clyde!bonnie!emh
act@pur-phy.UUCP (Alex C. Tselis) (12/05/84)
> > Some interesting points are brought out in that posting, > but I think the argument that abortion prevents future suffering > is fundamentally flawed. Abortion also prevents a future geniuses > although, perhaps, to a lesser extent. Two wrongs do not make a right! > Child abuse, malnutrition, lousy school systems, etc. are > terrible things, but the cure, hopefully, is not more abortions. > These problems need to be solved separately, both with and without > state aid. The issue of abortion is a very complicated one, as Ed Hummel says, and it ties in with much else in our society. The argument about future geniuses does not really belong here, however. One could just as well say that abortion also prevents future Hitlers and Pol Pots and so forth. The other point is that two wrongs don't make a right. Now if we grant that an abortion is a wrong, which I disagree with, one can also talk about having to choose the lesser evil, instead of saying merely that two wrongs don't make a right. Life, in fact is full of tough decisions and difficult choices, and in most situations none of the alternatives is easy or "right". In saying that I disagree with the statement that "abortion is wrong", I certainly don't mean that I think that abortion is an "good" thing. It isn't. It's uncomfortable, there are all sorts of unpleasant emotions associated with it, there are some risks inherent in the procedure itself (although, statistically speaking, the morbidity and mortality associated with pregnancy is greater than that of abortion: there are things like toxemia and eclampsia which can be fatal), and so on. Abortion is by no means the optimal method of birth control. The fact remains, however, that when making decisions that profoundly affect the life of the (often teenage) mother, we ought to remember that abstractions are all very nice, but they can have great effects on both the mother and the child. One of the things that our society ought to do is to provide universal and free access to contraceptives. Up until recently, this was not the case. Indeed, up until 1969, it was *illegal* for a physician to provide *even* information about contraception to women in Connecticut. My own feeling is that it's far better to *prevent* pregnancy than to terminate it. The government did not act very usefully in promulgating the "squeal" rule a year or so back. This rule required that parents of teenage girls who wanted to obtain birth control were to be informed. This would, of course, inhibit the girls from getting contraceptives. Now, it is true that abstinence will prevent conception, but this is unrealistic to expect. I'm perfectly willing to agree that 16 year olds are probably not ready for sexual intercourse, but the fact remains that they do it. What's better, then? Giving the girl contraceptives (with proper instruction), or a teenage pregnancy? In this case, one *has* to choose the lesser evil, which is provision of contraceptives. > Abortion may indeed be a practical solution to many problems, > both personal and social, but the essential issues are moral and > legal. > Ed Hummel > {allegra,cmcl2,ihnp4,...}clyde!bonnie!emh Abortion *is* a practical solution. It is, of course not the optimal one, but the alternatives are worse. In the good old days, if a woman found herself pregnant, she had very little as far as alternatives go. The man involved would disappear, society would make its disapprobation very plain, family would disown her, and so forth. Some of this is changing, but not really very much. Rather than carry the fetus (or embryo, if less than three months), women would often go to backroom abortionists. Who were they? They were dirty little people using dirty little knitting needles doing dirty little operations. There's one fact that ought to be borne in mind about then. The biggest cause of death of young women in those days was sepsis from improperly done abortions. The ones who survived were often not very lucky either. If abortion were made absolutely illegal, I guarantee that women will start going back to the abortionists, and death rates will rise again. It is no good pointing out to them that backroom abortions will often result in infection and death. A lot of women will do *anything* to end the pregnancy. Their desperation cannot be overlooked. Going back to those days is not the solution, as far as I'm concerned. These are all concrete issues, which should be addressed in this newsgroup. I find myself disheartened when I read the insults hurled back and forth between people here. This is a real issue, a serious one, and an important one. Vituperation does not optimize discussion of the issues and useless namecalling does not do justice to the importance of this matter. I'd like to see the discussions carried on in a more fraternal manner. Discussions about when "life" arises are all very nice in the ivory tower, and I like to know what others think about them, but the point of the philosophy, eventually, is to arrive at some sort of consensus about what to do. The problem is a very difficult one, and to say "life is sacred" doesn't do anything about solving it. If abortion is outlawed, which I think is the wrong thing to do, then we would have to address the fact that a lot of women will *die* because of that. If they carry their pregnancies to term, then we will have to face the issue that there will be a lot of children (and some of the mothers are children themselves) who will be abused badly by people who are in no position to be parents. The recent news about child abuse sickens me. To say that these kids will be adopted is not solution either, since most of them will not be. So what do we do? Feeling strongly about this matter is all very well, but I often get the impression that some people writing in are much more interested in their own egos and showing how holy they are and what good Christians they are an so forth. They do no justice to either their religion or to the problem at hand. Let's try to figure out what we agree on and henceforth carry the discussion from there. There are a lot more issues to abortion than is evident at first glance.
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (12/08/84)
> Some interesting points are brought out in that posting, > but I think the argument that abortion prevents future suffering > is fundamentally flawed. Abortion also prevents a future geniuses > although, perhaps, to a lesser extent. Two wrongs do not make a right! > Child abuse, malnutrition, lousy school systems, etc. are > terrible things, but the cure, hopefully, is not more abortions. > These problems need to be solved separately, both with and without > state aid. The argument might be "fundamentally flawed" but the reality is that things being the way they are now, abortion DOES prevent future suffering (along with possible future genial discoveries). And the reality is also that, as was pointed by the original article, the people who are militantly anti-choice also do not do anything positive (short of cosmetic actions such as "pregnancy counselling") to really help prevent abortions, in a manner which would also respect the humanity of women. > Abortion may indeed be a practical solution to many problems, > both personal and social, but the essential issues are moral and > legal. The reality is that people who will probably never need abortions feel that it is right for them to specify to those who will what "essential issues" are. When you are faced with your own pregnancy, wanted or unwanted, the "essential issue" is not moral and legal, because it is not a issue, it is the reality of what will happen to your life and that of your child. > > Ed Hummel Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (12/09/84)
XP Some interesting points are brought out in that posting,
XP but I think the argument that abortion prevents future suffering
XP is fundamentally flawed. Abortion also prevents a future geniuses
XP although, perhaps, to a lesser extent.
XP Ed Hummel
Wrongo Pongo! Abortions do not happen at random, occuring with
equal chance in loving homes where people want a child to care for
and in "homes" where the parent(s) can't or don't want to care for
a child. Abortions happen much more frequently in the second of
the two categories. (I hope that is obviously sensible to you all.)
Suffering is much much more likely than genius.
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp
^ ^