act@pur-phy.UUCP (Alex C. Tselis) (12/07/84)
The following was posted in net.abortion. I would like to reply to each of the points that the author seems to be making. >What seems to be missing from Ms Allen's long-winded article >supporting abortion is any mention or realization that 95% of >the *children* she is so stoutly consigning to oblivion do not >have the problems she so loudly decries. First of all, the person he should make his remarks to should not be Ms. Allen, because she is *anti-abortion*. The posting to which the author takes exception was not written by her, but was a reply to some of the points she made, and it was written to say that the whole abortion issue is a very complicated one, that there were many aspects to it which do not seem to have been considered very much, and that the discussion should be carried on at a different level, namely one in which we try to understand the issue and find what our points of agreement are. Only in this way can we really communicate our concerns and arrive at some sort of consensus. This sort of baiting does no justice to the very real issues that exist, and is an example of the sort of namecalling which doesn't belong in this newsgroup. The point is that child abuse is a *very* important problem, and the statistics which are quoted here assuredly underestimate it. >As for the 5% that >might, just might, fall into one of her neat pigeonholes of >dispair and poverty she describes for all children, what does >she suggest? She suggests kill them. Does this mean that we >can retroactively get rid of all handicapped children, children >born to poverty, abused children. My that sounds neat and >orderly doesn't it? We can wipe out suffering by just aborting >every child that even looks like it might be born into a >troubled life. Once again, using inflammatory language doesn't address the issues, and does a disservice to the whole point of this newsgroup and to the issues involved. Furthermore, the writer imputes statements to us that we never made. No one ever suggested that poverty, physical handicaps, and being the recipient of abuse were capital crimes. For the writer to suggest this is not in keeping with the spirit of this newsgroup. One of the points that we suggested keeping in mind was that children born to mothers who were not able to take care of them, and were unprepared for motherhood, are often the victims of abuse. To keep our language straight: an embryo is 0 to 3 months, a fetus is 3 to 9 months, and a baby (or child) is one that has been born. The problem of where humanity begins is a difficult and vexing one. Everyone accepts a child as a human being. Most people would regard an abortion at eight months of age as murder. What about six days? Many people would say, honestly and sincerely, that this *is not* yet a human being. Others would say that this *is* a human being. I think that the fact that thoughtful and sincere people can completely disagree about this means that we do not really know when to ascribe humanity to an embryo or fetus. My own feeling is that a blastula is not a human being. An eight month old fetus is a human being. Where do I draw the dividing line? I don't know. No one can know, because this is not a matter of biology, but rather of belief. To some, the dividing line is drawn very early in embryonic development. To others, it is drawn very late. *Everyone* agrees that a ending the life of a newborn is murder. To say that we've advocated the murder of children who are sick, poverty-stricken, or abused is to have us saying something that we did not. (my wife wrote the first article in this series, but I concur in all that she has to say; therefore, I use "we" in the sense that the first article's statements coincide with my beliefs) I think that since we're dealing with different beliefs, we should recognize that that they are honestly and sincerely held, and that in this situation, legislating one set of beliefs is wrong. It does no good to say that people who are prochoice are advocates of murder. It also does not address the other issues that were made in the first posting. Evidently the writer has not read the article very carefully, because the writer does not even know who *wrote* the article. >That was the most specious and foolish argument I have seen so far. Again, the writer ought to be able to do better than that. >And, to accuse pro-life people of not doing anything to try and >better the lives of troubled children is just a cheap shot and >complete falsehood. The point was not so much that "pro-life" people are not doing anything to try and better the lives of troubled children, but that for all the energy and time they spend picketing and bombing Planned Parenthood clinics, preventing people from going in and getting contraceptives, Pap smears, and yes, abortions, they could be doing much more to prevent unwanted pregnancies by lobbying for free access to contraceptives, sex education in schools, and programs to educate people about how heavy a responsibility parenthood is. The problem is that preventing people from going in to PP clinics and getting the pill does not do very much to prevent pregnancies. Often the people who are most intimidated are teenagers, and they're the ones who need this sort of advice the most and are able to carry pregnancies the least. It is also true that the state of knowledge about "the facts of life" is very bad in our society. There were some interviews in the New York Times a couple of years ago, with teenage mothers. One of them found herself pregnant because she thought that her "first time" didn't count. Another one thought that having a baby was like buying a new doll. She was about 15 years old. To my mind, these are real tragedies, and the simple solution of education about these things would do much more to prevent pregnancies (and therefore abortions) than advocating laws against abortion, picketing and bombing PP clinics, and so forth. Also, while I recognize that some "prolifers" also advocate freely available contracetives and better education, I find that most do not. Again, while *some* "prolifers" adopt babies who are given up for adoption, *many* do not. The ones who do not have anything to do with advocating preventive measures are often the ones who are the most vocal about shutting down abortion clinics. I've looked in vain for positive suggestions about preventive measures that we can all agree on in this newsgroup, but all I've seen so far are pointless philosophical arguments, and namecalling and insults. >If Ms Allen is so hung up on what might happen, >then I suggest she put her mind to rest and have her tubes tied. >That way she can stop worrying about her own possibilities and >perhaps stop writing such nonsensical generalities that every >unwanted pregnancy results in a child that is a loser at birth. >What a bunch of hogwash. Let me point out, once again that Ms. Allen is not the one to whom these remarks are to be addressed. I really wish that the writer had read the posting a little more carefully. Let me say, again, that the whole point is that we are not worried about our own possibilities, but we are trying to inject some different perspectives into the debate. Remarks such as the one above are not helpful and even, perhaps, insulting. Sterilization is not the answer for most people, and advocating it in this manner is irresponsible. My wife and I *do* plan to have children, but not until we are ready to shoulder the very heavy responsibilites involved. (We have been married only for two months.) I've given a rather long response to the writer, and I am posting it, in order to clear up any misunderstandings about what was intended in the original article, and what some of our ideas are. While some of the responses to the article were very good (and I thank those who took the time out to write them), others, such as the one I've tried to answer here, were not. Once again, I ask that we continue this discussion on a more reasonable plane. I've had other responses to the article, and I hope to deal with them in due time.