saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (04/26/84)
Hey, people!!! have you noticed how most of the people discussing
abortion in this newsgroup will never get pregnant. This is probably
the reason why such topics which are INTIMATELY related to abortion,
such as the right of people to control their own bodies, and the
misery of going through an unwanted pregnancy have been completely avoided.
With all these discussions of whether a fetus is human and of population
control, nobody cares about the fact that one of the reasons a woman might
want an abortion is that she does not want to be pregnant.
I would say that the most common reason for getting an abortion is that
one doesn't want to take care of a child, and the second most common
is that one doesn't want to be pregnant. Yes folks, you seem to be
forgetting someone in all your discussions: the mother. Babys, embryos
do not develop magically in nine months in some dark alley. They are
living in some woman's belly and does not let her forget it. They
develop by using up many of the mother's resources which she has to
take care to provide otherwise she will lose them in her own body.
Being pregnant is a lot of work!!!!!!! some of the discomforts involve:
nausea and vomiting, constipation, heartburn, increased heart rate,
nosebleeds, light-headedness and dizziness, Varicose veins and hemorrhoids,
shortness of breath, urinary frequency, breast swelling, vaginal discharge,
mild abdominal pains, orthopedic problems, leg cramps and pains, swelling
of ankles, insomnia, eye problems, dental problems, itchiness and dryness
of skin, decalcification, psychological changes. When you add on all the
discomforts and potential dangers in giving birth, you can get a clear
picture of it. Of course many women who do want their child enjoy pregnancy
as the excitment of a new life developping and the anticipation of having
a child greatly balance out these problems. When the child is not wanted
though, there is nothing to balance out these problems and pregnancy is only
misery, misery at being in such a disturbed physical shape, misery at the
prospects of taking care of a child one didn't want in the first place, or
misery at the prospect of giving up a child one wants but cannot take care
of, that one has had growing in ones own body but that one will have to
give to strangers never to see it again in our WHOLE LIFE.
Yeah, it is selfish to prefer an abortion to adoption. How many of you people
claiming that have nurtured a child in your belly for nmine months to give
it away to strangers? Can you start to begin to maybe imagine to try to figure
out how that would feel, going through those nine months of feeling your child
growing inside you, then not having your baby around while your body is happily
oozing out milk. Knowing that if your baby is black or hispanic or whatever,
it is not necessarily better where it is then had it been with you because
people don't really want THOSE babys, so in all probability it is stuck in some
institution somwhere , and even if you are not black or hispanic, not knowing
how the child is, knowing that it will grow up to hate you for having abandonned
it even though you did that out of love, so that it could have a nicer life.
There are no clean solutions, there is suffering and misery involved at each
corner in an unwanted pregnancy. Sometime the suffering is too great and
abortion is the solution which involves the least suffering. It certainly is
on the physical side, it is much less dangerous for a woman to have an abortion
performed by well-trained people, then it is to go through pregnancy. The
emotional side is different, but my guess is that the only person who can really
decide what one can handle emotionally and one cannot is oneself.
Yes, this is emotional and this is a flame; but abortions are performed often
for emotional reasons, and I think all you discussers deserve to be flamed at
for being so insensitive to the mother's point of view, and for acting as
though the only person involved in the growth of the embryo is the embryo
itself.
Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigleytan@iwu1d.UUCP (William Tanenbaum) (04/27/84)
Bravo to Sophie Quigley! Finally, someone has hit the nail on the head! Also, just think how much worse it is for the mother if the pregnancy is a result of forcible rape. Not only would the "right-to-lifers" deny the mother a legal abortion, they would insist that the act of such an abortion must be legally murder. They would thus insist that, were she to have such an abortion after much painful deliberation, that she would then be guilty of premeditated murder and must be punished accordingly (possible execution in my state of Illinois). Anything less would be to deny the full protection that the laws provide to all of us to fetuses. I think that the "right-to-lifers" take a noble sounding principle, take it as a moral absolute, and apply it across the board with little regard for the massive suffering that such an application causes. Many of the rest of us regard abortion as a moral evil, but (please forgive the cliche) moral choices are often choosing the lesser evil among a choice of evils. Such a choice comes down to a value judgment. I personally (being male) will never have to face such a painful choice, but simple human compassion tells me that society should not pass laws telling the mother what to do in such a situation, and CERTAINLY not punish her if she chooses an abortion. Anything else strikes me as SADISTIC. The life of the fetus does have value, and the right-to-lifers have a valid point here, but alas, we have hard choices to make. Unless, of course, the right-to-lifers get their way, in which case they will make all such choices for all of us. Bill Tanenbaum Here's to the perfect contraceptive, which will make all of this academic. Of course, if it works by preventing implantation, it would still be murder in the eyes of those in posession of the ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (04/28/84)
Sophie, I can at least congratulate you on bring the discussion back to issues like an individual's desire to control her own body--this bit about over- population, infanticide and stress was getting a bit forced. The article is going to address some of the issues you bring up from a decided fetus- is-human point of view, if only to clarify some of the reasons for the position. I warn the readers now, because many of the arguments make sense only if you accept (or suspect your disbelief of) that basic premise. I think that people who truly feel that the embryo/fetus is a human being and hence due all rights and respect due any human will fail to be moved much by your comments about the hardships of pregnancy that a woman goes through. Put simply, they feel that all of the inconveniences and potential dangers of pregnancy do not validate the taking of a human life. Probably for some, the only possible exception would be if the pregnancy were directly life-threatening to the mother, such as in certain diseases or in an ectopic pregnancy. So, it isn't a matter of "ignoring" the points you bring up, but feeling that they aren't central to the issue, which is one of preserving a human life. Of course, this doesn't hold much water with those who don't accept the first premise. Another issue brought up often is the desire of an individual to control her own body--a pretty central idea to modern Western thought. (Are you listening, Mr. Martillo?) The concepts of equality and egalitarianism are related issues. But in this one particular case, taking the same proposition that a fetus is human, are we truly free and equal, or are we prisoners of our biology? It is a bit unfashionable, if not downright proscribed, to speak of the "tragedy" of one's biology or of predetermined sex roles. Pretty much all of us agree this is a good thing, because it frees an individual to act as one wishes in fulfilling goals, not those necessarily those imposed by society. But, only a woman can become pregnant, and now we are talking about two people, not one, and the issue of control becomes much more complicated. -- /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca
steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (05/02/84)
[An open letter to Sophie Quigley]
I am somewhat upset at your rather violent reaction to the
discussions on this net, Ms Quigley. Since it does not seem
to me to be productive to debate your tone, I would rather
debate the content of your letter.
1] Although I agree with you as to the fact that abortion
should remain legal, I completely disagree with your
blanket dismissial of any anti-abortion arguments. It
should be noted that in this country, it is illegal to
abuse children, even though the life of the child, and
every bit of food, may have been provided for by the
people doing the abusing. In short, it has been decided
that dependency does not mean that the dependent is
entitled to no rights at all. Is this so wrong?
2] While you are correct in that I never will get pregnant,
I am led to believe by your statements that you yourself
have never been pregnent. By harping on the ill effects
some women suffer when carrying child, you have shown
your own ignorance in this same field; almost no pregnency
is anywhere as near as bad as you discribe it, and (I have
been told) is often a quite pleasurable sensation as well.
Thus, I do not think that you are any more, or less, qualified
to discuss this question than any male in the newsgroup.
3] It has been my experience that many women bring problems
with late abortion upon themselves, delaying the date up
to the last minute. (This notably does NOT happen in rape
cases, however). Pregnent women, no matter what situation
they are in, have a strong desire to carry the fetus to term.
Thus the decision for the abortion is delayed day after day,
which makes it all the more harder in the end. (I must admit
that my experience is limited to only 2 cases, in which I was
not heavily involved, however this is a lot more than most
people have had).
4] Finally, don't go making believe that it is the "big bad
sexist preacher's association against women" which is against
abortion. Even I will admit that late term abortions are of
questionable morality -- which is why this group was created --
to question it.
Steven Maurer