Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Various responses to Paul Dubuc Message-ID: <383@ttidcc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 29-Apr-85 17:56:56 EDT Article-I.D.: ttidcc.383 Posted: Mon Apr 29 17:56:56 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 30-Apr-85 02:26:26 EDT Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA. Lines: 108 answers to Paul Dubuc's postings: >>> CBS conceded that its "neutral" panel of experts >>> was proposed--at least in part--by the American >>> College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. >>>Is the ACOG "uninvolved in the abortion controversy"? >>Paul, who would you like as the resident "experts in fetal development" -- >>the local blacksmiths? (sarcasm deleted, since we've decided not to throw stones) > When CBS designated its panel as "uninvolved >in the abortion controversy" one might expect them to be fetologists who are >not, nor have they ever been, abortionists. Nor would one expect them to be >recommended by an organization that has been politically or legally involved >in abortion advocacy. Come now, be a little more reasonable. You knew that >was the whole point, didn't you? Yes/no/maybe. Your posting noted that the panel "...in part..." is involved the ACOG. That's not in toto. Also, fetologists unacquainted with abortion may not have the same information that fetologists who have been acquainted with abortion have. I'd be curious how much time the "experts" actually spend in practice, and how much in research, how much their viewpoints are affected by their work and how much by their morality. A membership in a professional organization does not a radical make. ------------------------------------------------------------- From another posting by Paul Dubuc -- Thank you for your summary of your stance. I think now we can jump over some of the rhetoric. Your views on abortion seem remarkably consistant (remarkable respective to numerous other arguments I've heard). It makes far more sense to me that IF one is opposed to abortion on the basis of the taking of a life, THEN one must also be opposed to abortion in the extreme cases (rape, incest) because it is still the taking of a life. (Mothers-life-endangered is one of those loaded issues. There are times when the obvious answer is yes, and other times when the answer is not so obvious {wishes of the mother herself, for instance}). So, our difference of opinion is the fundamental difference of "is a fetus a life, or isn't it, and if it is, when does it gain that status?" Very simple, really. We disagree, but I can accept the validity of your stance (if I haven't distorted it yet again). Now, a question arises of -- since we disagree, (as the two opposing sides do), one of us will find that the laws of the country do not reflect his/er belief. What do we do when our belief is the unsupported belief? Numerous people have indicated they have some interest in various pro-life and pro-choice groups, which would indicate some political body that operates within the laws of the country. That, too, is respectable. What to do about the lawless (on either side of the issue)? Specific comments: Re the social reality of women-as-sole-parent, Paul writes: >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. Unfortunately, this is a chicken-of-the-egg argument. Which occurred as a result of which is a little hard to determine -- both occurred. Both exist. How do we deal with this today? >}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.) The "pro-choice camp" is a group of individuals as diverse as the "pro-life camp". Consistency is not a marked characteristic of either. You might anticipate that the "pro-choice camp" will not offer a consistent criteria that protects the rights you insist upon when they do not necessarily believe in those rights. Personally, I think human rights begin when a human is born. I think that children are granted the right to life by the sacrifices of their parents and their society. I don't think they have any will or rights before they are born, and they have reduced rights until the date of their emancipation (18 - 21). These are lines that are drawn out of a practical need, certainly, and don't have any more particular merit than saying "cows are holy" as far as I am concerned. But, for a civilization to function in a practical sense, lines are drawn. Are fetuses "little lumps of protoplasm" or are they "human" in all the meaning of that word? Are _WE_ even more than "little lumps of protoplasm"? I don't happen to believe that there is anything so terribly unique and wonderful about the race of man. The laws of civilization that I support (e.g., don't murder people, don't steal, etc.) I support out of pure self interest. I don't murder anybody else, 'cose I don't want to be murdered. I can honestly say I would not consider an abortion, but would I still honestly say that if I were 45, and therefore stood a much greater risk? I don't think there is anything sacred about life in the abstract, though there is a great deal of interest and pleasure in life specifically (and, personal observation, in children, too). This is why I consider abortion to be a personal issue, rather than a moral, religous or political one. It's been dragged into a public arena because of the concerns of people who disagree in principle (and, I expect, in fact). What happens next? Adrienne Regard