ferrin@tonto.dec.com (Doug Ferrin) (09/23/86)
>> My main concern is that abortion is being used as a form >> of birth control and not for what it was intended - to save a >> mothers life, rape, incest etc.... > >How do you know what abortion was intended for? Give us a reference to >your evidence for intent. My impression is that abortion was invented >centuries ago, not for medical necessity, but for social necessity, by >young women who were in panic because a pregnancy would "ruin their >lives." However, my evidence consists mostly of vague memories from >old novels. Am I misled? If so, set me right. > >M. B. Brilliant Marty >AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 >Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houem!marty1 What I was refering to was the Wade vs. Rowe decision which the American Government gave as it's stamp of approval for abortion. I do not think that abortion was ever socially acceptable. It's also interesting to note that in the oath of Hypocrates it is stated that a doctor shall not cause a woman to lose a child by abortion (pardon my indirect quote). The phrase "social necessity" seems also to be misleading. I would not say that 99% of the abortions performed today are because of social necessity but rather social permissiveness. Again, I don't think that abortion should be there for the conveniance of untangling the mess that one is in. I would also add that the male partner in this is also equally accountable and should not be let off the hook. I also don't think that abortion was "invented" as you state (maybe discovered). Columbus didn't "invent" America :-) But I realise that were not here to discuss diction. Cheers Doug Ferrin
cc@locus.ucla.edu (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) (09/25/86)
In article <5488@decwrl.DEC.COM> ferrin@tonto.dec.com (Doug Ferrin) writes: > The phrase "social necessity" seems also to be misleading. I > would not say that 99% of the abortions performed today are > because of social necessity but rather social permissiveness. You are wrong. "Permissiveness" is not a cause of 20% of abortions, administered to married women. And it does not at all explain abortions administered to teenage victims of rape, incest and sexual abuse. > Again, I don't think that abortion should be there for the > conveniance of untangling the mess that one is in. I would also > add that the male partner in this is also equally accountable > and should not be let off the hook. It costs over $1000.00/month (1985 dollars and prices) to properly care for a pregnant woman in the last trimester. Hospital costs for a perfect child-birth (no complications, mother and child in excellent condition) are between $400 and $700 (old data -- now probably a lot more). Cost of "maternity" wardrobe not included. Post-natal care costs money too: furniture for the child, wardrobe for the mother and the child, mother's temporary unemployment.... Later, large financial obligations are ususally associated with adequate care and raising of the child.... And that's an 18-19 year long financial obligation. .... Abortions cost on the average $200 in 1985. Even the extra tax deduction hardly compensates for the difference. "Social necessity" migth be a cause in some cases, but "FINANCIAL necessity" is a sure leading cause. > I also don't think that abortion was "invented" as you state > (maybe discovered). Columbus didn't "invent" America :-) Just a side fact -- most cultures have folk herbal medicins that cause an abortion (usually by inducing a period within days). These natural methods are safe and cause no more problems than any early "natural" miscarriage. Such folk "cures" have been frowned upon by the major monotheistic religions and have been made illegal in most Western countries by religious and secular laws. Oleg Kiselev, HASA
carole@rosevax.UUCP (Carole Ashmore) (09/30/86)
In article <5488@decwrl.DEC.COM>, ferrin@tonto.dec.com (Doug Ferrin) writes: > I do not think that abortion was ever socially acceptable. It's > also interesting to note that in the oath of Hypocrates it is > stated that a doctor shall not cause a woman to lose a child by > abortion (pardon my indirect quote). 'Indirect quote', indeed! You have misinterpreted the Hippocratic oath to support your anti abortion position. I quote (directly): . . . I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked nor suggest any such counsel, and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. The Hippocratic Oath does not forbid abortion, per se, but a particular method of abortion. The method (which was still in occasional use by non medical practitioners of abortion up to the time of Roe vs. Wade) was that of introducing a foreign object into the uterus and waiting for the irritation caused by infection to cause the expulsion of the fetus. Unfortunately, this method, even after the introduction of antibiotics in 1945, often produced such a massive infection that the woman died. At the time of origin of the Hippocratic Oath it would usually have been fatal. Note that there is no mention of losing a child (and indeed no mention of a child at all). All concern is concentrated on the woman. Also note from the context (". . . and in like manner") that giving a woman a pessary to produce abortion was seen as similar to helping a patient commit suicide. The physician was enjoined to do neither even if asked by the patient or the patient's relatives. In its concern to forbid a method of abortion likely to kill the woman, the Hippocratic Oath is quite compatible with the Roe vs. Wade decision wherein it is stated that the states may regulate or forbid abortion after the first trimester in the interests of protecting the woman's health. Carole Ashmore