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: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights (Pt. 4 of 4) Message-ID: <5926@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 20:28:30 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.5926 Posted: Tue Sep 17 20:28:30 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 04:20:44 EDT References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (unix-Paul Dubuc,x7836,1L244,59472) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 157 >Man and Her Emotions > [ I have deleted an analogy about the cat and the bird to save some space.] >*Of course* it's unpleasant to view the aftermath of even a >medically-supervised abortion, and the ``pro-life'' movement has >seen to it that we know just what it looks like. Most people don't >like the ``back room'' of a butcher shop either, nor do they like >to look over the shoulder of a surgeon. Blood and body parts are >never pleasant. When we connect this bloody imagery with our >reproduction, with destroying a being which, if allowed to, becomes >the *baby we love*, then our hearts choke up and a part of us says, >``*No! Bad*!'' -- just like the little girl's feeling for the bird. Obviouly mere asthetics don't make right and wrong. But it's hard to get people to do something about things that are *wrong* unless they see them. Show them Aschwitz and you have accomplished more than just telling people about it. I think your analogy was flawed in one respect: A cat is not a moral being. Human's are. Nothing an animal does is right or wrong from a moral point of view. You can't extent this to humans. >For many people, that's enough for them. Any feeling as powerful >as *that*, they judge, has just *got* to be their ``conscience >speaking,'' and they accept this ``gut reaction'' uncritically. >This emotional response is, I'm convinced, a major force behind >the pro-life movement, and the reason it really thinks it *is* >``pro-life.'' Yet, I would recall the deer and the wolves -- >a great many deer ended up extraordinarily miserable, sickly, >and starving, as a result of the best intentions of human beings. Perhaps it's pointless to argue here. I agree that emotions are not to be the foundation of moral right and wrong. I would differ with you as to the extent that emotions play as the foundation of the pro-life view (especially my own view). >(Another very large group within ``pro-life'' is simply and cold- >bloodedly intent on dismantling the sexual and women's revolutions, >by the traditional method of making women ``pay for their play'' -- >keeping them barefoot and pregnant, and socially ostracizing them.) What movement is this? I'm supprised I missed it if it is "very large". Also, I hope you can back up your accusations. You might be interested in another brand new book a group within the pro-life movement: _Pro-life Feminism_, Gail Grenier Sweet, ed.; Life Cycle Books, 1985. >How many people out there really *remember* the ``good old days'' >before Roe vs. Wade? *I* do. I remember thousands of women >who *insisted* on the right to control their own bodies -- >dying at the hands of *butchers*! ``Pro-lifers'' say, ``They >deserved it! What about the *millions* of fetuses who are >dying now versus far fewer back then!'' I reply, *women* >have *brains* -- and feelings, and minds, and personalities! >Prior to the third trimester, *fetuses* don't! Let's be real! > >As to whether the ``verdict of history'' will favor the pro-choice >or the anti-abortion ``forces,'' I suggest that abortion is >probably not one of history's major deciding points, but in the >event, if history turns out written by *Brave New World*, then >history will no doubt say whatever *Brave New World* wants it to. How do you know that it hasn't happened with the bit of history you remember. The following is excerpted from an article I posted last December: *Maternal death due to illegal abortions before Row vs. Wade were greatly *exaggerated by groups like NARAL. Dr. Bernard Nathanson (NARAL cofounder) *has said in "Aborting America" that they deliberately lied to the press *and their claims were given wide and uncritical support. The Encylclopedia *of Criminal Law and Justice gives an estimated figure of 8000 deaths per *year in 1958 (I think) without citing any source. * *However, in Sept. 1967 the International Conference on Abortion was held *in Wash. DC. Its participants included doctors, lawyers, theologans, *sociologists, and ethicists representing different views. A book based *on the proceedings was published called "The Terrible Choice: The *Abortion Dilemma" (Bantam, 1968). It says the following about deaths from *abortion (p. 43): * * If the number of abortions performed is difficult to come * by, the number of deaths resulting from abortion is eaiser * to obtain. As one conference participant, Dr. Christopher * Tietze, pointed out, those who die from abortion do so mainly * as a result of hemorrage or infection. In either circumstance * they are likely to be seen in a hospital, where the condition * will be diagnosed. Those who die on arrival in hospitals, * or shortly thereafter, usually undergo autopsies. * * In summarizing the discussions of the medical panel, Dr. * Andre' Hellegers, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology * at Georgetown Univ. reported that in 1964 there were a * total of 247 known deaths from abortion in the U.S. In * 1965 there were 235. These figures include death from * spontaneous miscarriages, legal therapeutic abortions and * illegal abortion. The question may be raised how many * women actually die from abortion with the fact going un- * recognised or unreported. Obviously, an accurate assessment * of this is impossible. * * These statistical inadequacies emphasize the extreme care * with which *all* available figures should be used. But * despite these problems, all the doctors [there were 15] * at the International Conference on Abortion reached a * consensus that a total of 500 abortion deaths per year * would be a reasonable figure--based on the current data. * *Page 47 has a table for the 1965 figures (latest available then) *broken down by state and race (White/Non-white). New York had *the most reported deaths (23 white 26 non-white). California *was next which also had the biggest difference between white *and non-white (25 white 14 non-white). The table can be found in *"Vital Statisics of the United States" Vol. 2 Part B. * *I don't think the doctors at this conference would have called *abortion a major cause of death among women. Even in 1968, four *years before the Row vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton decisions. As to *where figures of 8000 to 10,000 deaths per year came from, well, *I can only accept Nathanson's explanation for that. I quoted it *a few months back. He also made the point that, should abortion *be made illegal overnight, there wouldn't necessarily be a *return to the back-alley coathanger abortion. Abortion technique *was revolutionized about the same time the laws were. Even a *person with little training can operate a suction currette (not *a very hard device to hide) with "remarkable saftey". * *I know that just one woman dying from an abortion is too many as *is one who dies from drug abuse or alchololism or any situation *caused by desparate conditions in life. One answer might be to *make these all legal and safe. Another might be to try to relieve *the desparation. A while back Paul DuBois cited some sources to *indicate that illegal abortion had not been reduced in countries *that have legalized abortion. For various reasons they still go *on. The primary one is probably money and the answer to that, *proposed by many is that tax money be used. Will that help the *poor be less poor? Not necessarily, but it will make them fewer *in number. The fact that a large proportion of these poor are *minority groups and those in third world countries makes me wonder *if this is the right way to approach the problem. * *Also, I'm not sure that the complications from legal abortions *are insignificant. Such complications (perforated uterus, sterility, *miscarrage to name a few) are often diagnosed some time after the abortion *and are treated as a problem separate from the abortion. Can anyone cite *any studies on the rate of uterine cancer, sterility, abnormal births or *such among women who have had abortions vs those who haven't? You chide pro-lifer's for their emotional response to the abortion issue. Well, I don't think you have gone very far in showing that much of that emotion isn't justified. The pro-choice movement has used, and continues to use emotional and deceptive tactics to get it's way. But that seems to have gone unnoticed by their sympathizers. Now that the status quo is the way they want it, let's all play fair, huh? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com