act@pur-phy.UUCP (Alex C. Tselis) (12/06/84)
---------------------------------------------- > 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. > Abortion may indeed be a practical solution to many problems, >both personal and social, but the essential issues are moral and >legal. Note: My husband's response to the "lost geniuses" point expresses my attitude as well, although I would like to add that the world has probably lost more geniuses from racial, religious, economic & sexual discrimination than from abortion. A hefty number of potential geniuses also *die* from abuse and neglect after they're born, too, and while we're looking at where all the geniuses have gone, let's not forget that great male pastime of war... I agree that abortion is a practical solution to many problems, but I also think that it is a *moral* one. What Mr. Hummel doesn't address is my point about parenthood being a commitment. Look at the number of divorced fathers who don't pay child support and/or who don't remain active parents to their children. Many of these men are failing in their commitments to children they *chose* to have. If people who *choose* to make a commitment frequently fail in keeping that commitment, just what are the chances of people keeping a commitment they never voluntarily made? Is it *moral* to *force* someone to be a parent? Is that fair to either the parent or the child? If you, Mr. Hummel, force someone to bear a child, who really should be responsible for that child? The person who bore it or you? And the problem of *forcing* parents to feel a commitment to their children is one that no government can solve. That is something that has to come from within & voluntarily, or it isn't valid. My biggest problem with anti-abortionists is that they don't seem to care about parenthood or children or at least they don't seem to think about it very much. I'd give more thought to adopting another cat than anti-abortionists imply is necessary in bringing a child into the world. Is that *moral*? Anti-abortionists are a very active, very forceful group. And all of their activity (or all of it that *I* can see) is directed at forcing more children to be born not in helping those children who are already here or trying to keep children from being born by means other than abortion. As I said earlier, I have to run a gauntlet whenever I go to Planned Parenthood. The anti-abortionists want to intimidate *everyone* who goes to that clinic. They don't care if you're trying to *prevent* an abortion (by getting a contraceptive), or if you're trying to *prevent* death &/or disease (by getting a PAP smear or VD test), or trying to help your baby be healthy (by getting pre-natal advice), or if you're really going for an abortion. No matter what business a woman has in that building, she has to walk through a double line of protesters who scream "Nazi" in her ears & throw pamphlets at her & try to block her access to the building. Now I happen to be fairly tall for a woman & 26 & very sure of myself, so they don't keep me out. But I think they do keep younger or even older or more frail women out, until those women are driven by real desperation (like they're pregnant). Not only are these people contributing to the number of abortions, they're directing a lot of energy into fetuses that could be better spent helping the children who are here now. If human lives are sacred to them, then why don't they go help a few humans? Why aren't *they* dispensing contraceptives? Why aren't *they* opening shelters for battered women & children? Or organizing support groups for parents who are in stressful situations that contribute to child abuse? Some of the right wing groups that are close to Ronald Reagan have actually tried to make it *illegal* for the government to act against child abusers when the abuser is the father because such laws offer what they see as unconstitutional "interference with a *man's right to control his* family." (See the package of legislation called the "Family Protection Act of 1981.") There are sins of omission as well as of commission. If you devote the preponderence of your energy and your time and your money to save fetuses when there are already far too many (one is too many & there are *millions*) starving and/or beaten and/or neglected children in the world, then you are choosing the unborn over the living. In my opinion, that is not the most moral choice. And when you want to *force* people to have children but refuse to take responsibility for those children, then that is being irresponsible. submitted by Alex Tselis for C. Elizabeth Jackson (...ihnp4!lznv!cja)