Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Madelyn's question
Message-ID: <5220@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Apr-85 16:31:00 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.5220
Posted: Fri Apr 26 16:31:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Apr-85 06:29:03 EST
References: <373@ttidcc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 158

Another response to Adrienne Regard:

}>No, you don't get it.  I agree that sex is not ONLY for procreation.
}>But are you going to maintain that it has NOTHING to do with procreation?
}>The argument being presented here seems to imply that.  Having sex *is*
}>how pregnancy occurs most naturally.  People who engage in that ought
}>to be aware of this as a possibility and take it into account.
}
}This argument got me thinking.  My slant on the subject has been "NOW that
}we are _able_ to control the likelihood of pregnancy. . ." etc., when in
}fact, we aren't able to control any such thing with certainty.  In the case
}Madelyn cited, we really are talking about abortion as a last-ditch form of
}birth control.  I don't personally agree with abortion as a method of birth
}control, but I've also never had occasion to have to deal with it as such,
}since other methods have proved reliable.  What does that mean?  I'm
}afraid I still don't think that my experience should become the template for
}all behaviours.  I still think the option should be available to women whose
}experience differs from mine, since they are the ones who have to choose.

I wasn't arguing that anyone's experience should become the template for
all behaviour.  Our choices are always limited by certain factors.  I think
that ending the life of another (the pre-born child in this case) is one
of those.  I don't think it makes sense to argue that a certain option
should be available to others just because their experience may be different
than yours.  You have to take into consideration what the option *is*.

}>I believe that people generally *choose*
}>of have sex.  If they will not accept the possibility of pregnancy that
}>goes along with their choice, I think they are being irresponsible.
}
}We agree.  But what action follows from that sense of responsibility?

The fetus is an innocent party to the choice that was made.  She shouldn't
have to die because of that choice.

}>>Is the rest of your argument really "everybody has to have kids" rather
}>>than "abortion itself is wrong"?  Or "nobody get's any choice in this
}>>world"?  Deep down in the heart of it, what are you proselytizing for?
}
}>Is your argument really "everybody has to have sex so it is unfair to
}>say that people must be responsible if their having sex results in
}>pregnancy"?  No, I think you know better.  So why don't you give me
}>a little credit and not imply that I hold such ridiculous beliefs?
}
}No, but my argument _might_ be that women and women alone have kids.

Gosh!  I hope not.  I hope I had *something* to do with my daughter's
being here. 

}The current state of our society shows a greater and greater number of women
}with children sinking below the poverty line, and this is WITH abortion
}available.  The society no longer has the strong legal, moral, ethical
}bonds that tie fathers to the children for the 18 some odd years.  The
}society still places the burden of "parenting" on the mother.  My argument
}_might_ be that people should be allowed to choose how to act in the light
}of their accepted responsibility in a legal, safe manner that has nothing
}to do with anybody else's morality.  But those are part of some much larger
}problems, and really doesn't weigh on the abortion issue except as a by-
}product.

I would venture to say that the availability of abortion might have
contributed a good deal to this situation.  Instead of balancing the
inequity by holding men more responsible for the children they help
conceive, pro-choice folks fought for the right to abortion to make women
more independent.  (The right to "control their bodies" and all that).
This new independence places all the burden of child bearing on the women.
It also lets men be irresponsible.  If a woman gets pregnant, the man
could feel more justified in leaving her on her own, since she can
get an abortion.  Abortion has helped insure that more of the burden
of parenting is placed on the mother.

}The questions we are skirting are (1) when do "human rights" begin,

I have yet to see the pro-choice camp come up with consistent criteria
for this.  (i.e. criteria that don't also exclude the rights of humans
we do want to protect.)

}(2) if rights are in conflict, which rights take precident and who bears
}responsibility and

Who's right to *what* takes precedent, you mean (I hope).  It certainly
isn't true that *any* rights one individual has can take precedence over
*all* of the rights of another.

}(3) prior to that time, who has the right to choose?

Prior to what time?  Choose what?

Yes, I agree we're skirting these issues.  They've been skirted
since *Row vs Wade*.

}I'll tell you this, I was immeasurably shocked by your response to Madelyn,
}but I probably should apologize for attributing ridiculous beliefs to you.
}I'll try to avoid it in future.

Thanks.  Apology accepted.  I have a hard time avoiding stuff like that
myself (and I've had more practice than you.)

}>>For you, Paul, I'd be interested to hear whether you think abortion may
}>>be justified in cases of rape/incest, and/or when the mother's life would
}>>be endangered.  Is there _any_ time abortion is right?  Mail or post, as
}>>you prefer.
}
}>But this isn't what we're discussing here is it?  You're new to this
}>group or you would know where I stand here.  I've discussed my position
}>openly in the past.  But in the context of this discussion it is avoiding
}>the issue and my position is irrelevant to the argument here.  With regard
}>to this discussion, does it make any difference what I believe about these
}>cases?
}
}No, those questions were my questions.  My first posting was early February.
}I've been reading since approx. 3 weeks earlier.  I don't know if that makes
}me new or not.  I've seen previous postings that I can remember your name
}on, but I can't say that I saved them.  If you have a brief copy you wouldn't
}object to mailing, I'd appreciate receiving it.  If not, well. . .

I've been on the net about 3 years.  Net.abortion is about 1.5 years old, I
think.  I may have some detailed articles saved somewhere on these cases.
For your information (and not for the sake of argument), I'll give you a
summary:

Rape and incest:  Personally, I don't think abortion in these cases is
justified.  These cases are packed with more emotional content than
elective abortions, but I don't see any added *reasoning* that makes abortion
right in these cases as opposed to "chosen abortions".  Believe me, I've
written hundreds of lines of argument to support this position.  But, legally
speaking, I would allow a compromise which allowed abortion in these cases
since,

1) beside being against abortion, I am also against rape and incest.
(I hope nobody is surprised.)

2) Demanding that abortion be outlawed for these cases at this point would
get us nowhere at all and leave the 90+% aborted for other reasons out in
the cold.

I would not accept the compromise if the necessary condition would be that
the compromise would have to be the last word on the subject (I don't see
that as the purpose of compromise).  Compromising for the purpose of not
having to deal with the issue any more is not acceptable--no matter what
the issue is, or what the compromise entails.

Mother's life endangered:  Yes, I think abortion is acceptable in cases
like this.  The important thing is that we have a consistent attitude toward
the value of all human individuals.  That attitude would hope to save
*both* mother and child.  May I point out that even Catholic hospitals
do abortions when the mother will die otherwise.  In these cases, however,
there is much sincere grief on the part of the hospital staff.  They
have lost a patient.  It is a real tragedy.  In contrast, abortion clinics
only recognize *one* life as having any value (in many cases it is even
questionable whether they value even that one as much).  The other is
unceremoniously tossed into a bucket or sucked into a jar; the whole object
of the operation having been to expire it.  There is a vast difference
between the two mentalities displayed here, and I think they have equally
differing implications for how we value human life in society as a whole.
-- 

Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd