Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!sas
From: sas@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: My perspective.
Message-ID: <28676@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 22:25:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: lanl.28676
Posted: Tue Jul 23 22:25:52 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 20:08:54 EDT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 85

I hope that none of you think that abortion is a positive experience.
Most people of the pro-choice leaning that I know agree that abortion
is a big decision and that indiscriminate abortion is unhealthy for
both the would-be mother and the society she lives in.  

Among the pro-lifers I know, I see more fanatacism but the view they
are fighting for is a little more critical to them.  I hope that
pro-choicers realize that they are fighting for a relatively minor
cause compared to the one of the pro-lifers (from their own perspective
of course).  Socially accepted murder vs. more government involvement
in personal decisions that cause non-trivial but rarely life-threatening
inconvenience.  I expect the pro-life movement to be a little exciteable
given what they feel is at stake.

The pro-choice movement is fighting for something not unlike (in
magnitude) what the NRA is fighting for.  (incidentally, I expect that
there are more pro-choice people who are anti-gun than there are pro-life
people who are pro-gun.)  The pro-gunners want the right to bear arms,
usually a convenience but conceivably the difference between life and
death.  Pro-gunners have really been challenged only on their right
to have easily concealable weapons inside certain high-crime areas and
to not have to register weapons.

The medical "facts" that have been used to support abortion all seem to
degenerate to the fact that it is easier to terminate a pregnancy than
to sustain it without benefit of a mother.  I am appalled at the number
of times I have seen the word "parasite" used.  When a woman voluntarily
has sex with a man, she "invites" the "little parasite" to take up
residence if she doesn't use birth control.  When a "couple" has sex 
they take on the responsibility of pregnancy if they don't use effective
birth control.  It is sad to see so many viewing the issue as a
"responsibility" of society to "unburden" them from the biological facts
of reproduction.

The arguement that effective birth control is not available is weak.
It isn't amazing that birth control isn't 100% effective when it is
viewed as a right rather than a responsibility.  The Catholic church
(and probably others) feel that any form of birth control other than
that of knowledgeable abstinance is wrong.  Many responsible Catholics
succeed in limiting family size this way.  Many others use mechanical
methods of birth control much more effectively while others depend on
the pill.  These all have their limitations but if beeing "free from
birth" is important enough to you, you might use all of them!  I don't
find such a solution inconceivable when contraception is viewed as a
responsibility rather than a right.  When abortion is a 100% effective
form of birth control that requires no forethought, it is no wonder
so many desire it!  It is inconvenient that we as a species are so
fertile, but not very amazing when you consider our evolutionary 
heritage.  We wouldn't be here if our genes dictated ZPG.  So if we
want ZPG we should accept it as a responsibility not a right! I might
listen to someone who 

As has been pointed out in this newsgroup by some of the more polite and
less fanatic posters here, the abortion issue will not be resolved by
legislation either way.  The law now supports much of the abortion as
desired by pro-choice groups, and pro-life groups are bombing abortion
centers.  If abortion were again prohibited by law, pro-choice groups
would probably take over the violence.  

I do not advocate strictly banning all abortion, it isn't enforceable
and I agree with pro-choicers that it isn't nice to mess in other 
peoples lives.  I do, however, advocate a strong change in the social
environment that not only accepts abortion as birth control but seems
to encourage it.  Were abortion more frowned upon, I believe that many
more of the alternatives, (birth control, adoption, and unplanned
parenthood), would be more accepted.  I wonder how many of us would be
here today if our parents had accepted abortion as an acceptable form
of birth control.  Many of us probably were "mistakes" that were
nonetheless accepted and nurtured to what we are today.

I certainly would not accept the notion of government funded abortion
without mandatory sterilization.  What about government funded sterilization?
The biggest arguement I have seen for abortion is unwanted children and
ZPG.  If we beleive that abortion is strictly a social issue of unwanted
children and zero population growth then it would be criminal to deny
a person sterilization based on ability to pay.

While the denial of an abortion may seem a victimization of the woman
involved, isn't the widespread acceptance of abortion similar?  How
many women who don't want an abortion find themselves pressed toward it
by friends, family, coworkers, boyfriend or even husband.  How many
men have demanded that their spouse or girlfriend have an abortion?


					Steve Smith