Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dscvax2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucsbcsl!dscvax2!mn
From: mn@dscvax2.UUCP (Matt Noah)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Overpopulation, Babies and Rationalization
Message-ID: <2@dscvax2.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-May-85 14:04:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: dscvax2.2
Posted: Fri May 31 14:04:25 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Jun-85 11:26:28 EDT
Organization: Digital Sound Corp., Santa Barbara
Lines: 69

Overpopulation means to me to mean having too many mouths to feed
with the food we have.  I certainly feel that all people should
have adequate shelter, nutrition and medical attention as well.
I also think we - all members of this planet - need to become
better neighbors to one another; more loving and more giving.
So, how is it that we can provide qualified physicians with a
sanitary environment for the poor of this world having abortions?
An abortion is an expensive medical procedure.  Many indigent
people of this world would balk at the idea of aborting a child
because that child would be the one to take care of the parents
in their old age.  Even if only 30% of the children of a country
survive, the people see this as a necessary price to pay for 
survival.  Abortion would not solve this problem, only worsen it.
Broad economic reforms, agricultural reform and industrialization
would go far where abortion would worsen their quality of life.
Regardless, I feel more concerned about abortion in this country
at present because it is something I can more greatly affect. 
Abortion about the earth will have to be put aside for now.
Overpopulation then becomes a less salient issue because we are
now discussing abortion in America.
> Starting at the end of his posting, he completely ignored the
> overpopulation issue. The United States is not overpopulated,
> but most of the rest of the world (the Third and Fourth World
> in particular) is. 

I am rather tired of the ignorant tirade of propaganda which
states that pro-lifers are not concerned with children after
they are born.  Any statement to the contrary would be
understated.  The fact that you could find a pro-lifer who is
a Jew-hating, cross-burning card-carrying member of the KKK
does not argue with my assertion for there is surely a pro-choicer
with the same attributes.  Let us argue with the assumption of a
rational, common woman or man.
> In other words, I care about the children who are already born.
> As pointed out in "The New Our Bodies, Ourselves", many (but
> certainly not all) pro-lifers are only interested in preventing
> a woman from having aabortion. Once her child is born, it
> doesn't matter that it might be hungry, or abused, or anything
> else. They are only concerned with keeping that woman from
> making a responsible choice about the fate of her unwanted
> child.

Fifteen years ago abortion was illegal.  You could still have an
abortion.  Making something legal does not make it right and my
observations of the adult population in this country indicates
a great deal of rationalization.  Alot of us have disdained the
notion of right and wrong in favor of personal liberty without
personal responsibility.  What are the right vs. wrong issues
in the abortion controversy?  When do you feel a person's rights
come into existence?  If you wanted the child you or your spouse
were bearing, would the child's rights - something society gives
us because of our personhood - come into being at 1) conception,
2) at the conclusion of a pregnancy test, 3) the first kick, 4)
the first brainwave, 5) the first time the child is wanted, 6)
birth, 7) the instant the parents have enough money to sustain
the child in a suitable standard of living ...?
Our legal system is based on justice; a concept of right and
wrong, of morality.  All laws are legislated morality.  If it
were not for the fact that a human being were involved, abortion
might just be a woman's issue, a woman's choice.
> Right now,
> however, I'd get an abortion if I was pregnant. That is my
> choice, not yours, or "god's".
> To be continued....
> 					ann muir-thomas

Speaking for myself and for those who can't.	Matt Noah