anderson@ittvax.UUCP (Scott Anderson) (04/12/84)
I have many objections to Gerald Owens' (gatech!owens) analogy of the
violation of the rights of one set of people (blacks) by allowing
slavery with the violation of the rights of another set of ?people?
(fetuses) by allowing abortion (That's as fair a summary as I can
manage). I will only mention one factual one here..
He says:
The doctor: No abortion, no fee.
...
The Judge: Well, The fetus can't hire a lawyer, obviously.
Civil rights violated?? Is it human?? Hmm, a good
question. I'll have to ask a few doctors (Now, guess
who is consulted. No peeking, only one guess.
AWWW!! You got it!! :-)
If you think that the fee for an abortion is relevant to a doctor's
decision, you're way off. Pregnancy and child-rearing are a continuous
cycle of trips to the doctor. Kids generate more money for doctors
than any other group except for the very old (I'm guessing here--but
I think I'm right.) If the doctors REALLY wanted to make money, they'd
outlaw abortions and all go into OB/GYN and pediatrics.
You're also assuming that doctors only make decisions based on money.
For slave traders, that might be fair, but doctors are, for the most
part, kind loving people who want to relieve suffering, pain, disease,
etc. (If you disagree, then you must've had some terrible doctors
in your life.)
Scott D. Anderson
decvax!ittvax!andersonowens@gatech.UUCP (Gerald R. Owens) (04/13/84)
I would certainly imagine that Mr. Anderson would have many objections to my analogy, since it points out that there are many benefits for abortion, and that human history has shown that inconvenient facts and ideas can be facilely ignored if there is enough profit around. His parenthetical question that feti are (PEOPLE?) (if I recall correctly), precisely illustrates what I am trying to say. The question of it's humanity is an embarassing one, it is ignored, it is held to be impossible to answer, it is held to be a subjective opinion, on and on. Well, what's good for Ed Meese is good enough for everyone. We properly question whether our government officials have compromising ties to special interests, and we normally discount their declamations if it can be shown that they are doing so to avoid a loss or to make gain. Despite all the medical evidence, officials of the tobacco growing states still deny that smoking causes cancer. In my article, I am merely pointing out that the situation compellingly invites abuse. It would probably be as incredible for many to think that feti may eventually be considered human, just as the slave owners would think it incredible that the blacks would be considered human and deserving of rights. I fear we may be making the same mistake all over again, and add feti to the list that already includes jews, indians, blacks, chicanos, and women as victims of human greed. Gerald Owens Owens@gatech