Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site bonnie.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!emh From: emh@bonnie.UUCP (Edward M. Hummel) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Beyond Smugness: The Consequences Everyone Should Consider Message-ID: <308@bonnie.UUCP> Date: Tue, 4-Dec-84 08:34:23 EST Article-I.D.: bonnie.308 Posted: Tue Dec 4 08:34:23 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 5-Dec-84 00:14:59 EST References: <1545@pur-phy.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Whippany NJ Lines: 72 > What seems singularly absent from all the discussion of > abortion is any mention of *children,* the invitable result of > non-aborted pregnancies. ... > And the truth of the > matter is that aborting a fetus may well be in best interests > of the *child* as well as of the parent. How many children > would *choose* to be born into a home in which they weren't > wanted? How many children would *choose* to be born into a > home in which they'd be abused? ... > Let's not dwell on the pain & fear that children who are physically > &/or sexually abused undergo. Let's just look at *their* > choices. > First, you can stick around & hope you learn to duck/run well > enough that you survive. This option does not work well for > small children or babies, but then very little works well for > small children or babies who are abused. (And they are the > ones who are most likely to suffer when the mothers are > teenagers and/or if they were unwanted. I think the incidence > of child abuse among teenage mothers is 70%.) Lots of > younger children simply get killed because they can't run &/or > duck. So before you screech in horror too much about how > *abortions* are performed, look at autopsy reports of abused children > & find out what *one* of the alternatives to abortion really is. > Are you seriously prepared to argue that it hurts *less* to > have one's skull bashed in *after* one is born? ... > Unborn fetuses are terribly easy to love--they are > silent, relatively undemanding & "live" for only nine months. It's children > who are difficult to love on an ongoing basis; it's children > who require a lifelong commitment and it's children who are > being *routinely* abused and neglected in this country. Therefore, > it's also *children* whom we should be thinking of when we think > of abortion. The moral issue is not "do I have a right to an > abortion," but "do I have the right to bring a child into the > world that I know I cannot take care of properly for 18 > years & for whom no one else will take responsibility?" > And people like Ms. Allen seem unwilling to make > this a decent country for *children* to live in. ... > I'm not just pro-choice because I think the right to an abortion is a > necessity; I'm pro-life because I care about the *living* more than > I care about the unborn. And until I see the anti-abortionists listen > to the very audible screams of living children, I'm not going to have > too much empathy for their nightmares about the alleged "silent screams" > of fetuses. Some interesting points are brought out in that posting, but I think the argument that abortion prevents future suffering is fundamentally flawed. Abortion also prevents a future geniuses although, perhaps, to a lesser extent. Two wrongs do not make a right! Child abuse, malnutrition, lousy school systems, etc. are terrible things, but the cure, hopefully, is not more abortions. These problems need to be solved separately, both with and without state aid. Abortion may indeed be a practical solution to many problems, both personal and social, but the essential issues are moral and legal. Ed Hummel {allegra,cmcl2,ihnp4,...}clyde!bonnie!emh