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: Smugness (2nd of 4)
Message-ID: <4328@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Dec-84 18:41:46 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4328
Posted: Tue Dec 11 18:41:46 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Dec-84 06:06:00 EST
References: <1545@pur-phy.UUCP> <4261@cbscc.UUCP>, <1566@pur-phy.UUCP>, <4327@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 212

}...
}However, if you don't think the government is properly involved
}in feeding people, why do you think its proper role is to
}force women to give birth, especially when (as I think you would
}be the first to acknowledge) it cannot force those same
}women to *care* for their children?

"Forcing" (how pro choice people love that word) a woman not to
have her unborn child killed just because she has gotten pregnant
and doesn't want to be.  Is that what you mean?  Are we playing
word games?  Actions of people are restricted as a rule where the
exercise of those actions end the life of another.  Women do not
normally get pregnant against their will (See below regarding rape).
No, the government can't force people to take good care of their
children, by why does this make a difference as to whether those
children should be allowed to live at all?

}
}>This assumes that parenthood starts at birth.  
}>You can't argue with that assumption as a given because that 
}>is the crux of the abortion issue.  
}
}I can & do assume that the nurturing responsibilities of parents
}begin at birth, & from birth on, the kind of commitment the parents feel 
}toward their child is critical to that child. Pregnant women can
}best nurture their fetuses by taking care of themselves (which is
}something I would hope all women would do in any event)--the
}unique, nurturing role of parents does not start *until* the child
}is born.

No the child is nurtured by its mother before birth.  It is for
this that some call it a parasite.  Saying people aren't parents
until the child is actually born doesn't make sense.  If my wife
and I concieve a child she is its mother and I (who else?!!) have
fathered it.  The actual birth of the child is incidental to the
fact that we are its parents.

}>Pregnancy is only involuntary as the result of rape.  
}
}I must say, Mr. Dubuc, that you have been one of the kindest
}and most thoughtful anti-abortionists to respond to my article
}(Mr. Hummel was the other), but this, Mr. Dubuc, is absolutely untrue
}and beneath you.
}Pregnancy is FREQUENTLY involuntary. Birth control devices can
}& do fail. What about all of those women who thought they were
}protecting themselves from pregnancy by using the Dalkon shield IUD?
}What about those women who took those fake birth control pills?
}Aside from "mechanical failures," people can simply make inadvertent
}mistakes. Pregnancy is OFTEN an accident. Would you make the same kind 
}of claim for any other accident? Is every plane or car crash that 
}involves human error somehow *not* an accident?

Pregnancy is frequently undesired.  But it is an undesired consequence
of a volitional action on the part of the couple.  Haveing sex is an
activity that always presents the possibility of pregnancy.  Part of
being an adult in our society is taking responsibility for the result
of our own actions.  Sex cannot be regarded as other activities that
never present the possibility of pregnancy.  That is what I feel you
are trying to do when you say that pro-lifers would "force" pregnancy
on women.  The fact that a result of our action is not intended does
not necessarily remove culpability from a responsible adult.  People
who use birth control should know that their particular method is not
100% effective.  Pregnancy is not an inevitable result of sex, but it
is a result that can be reasonably expected.  I am not saying that
those who engage in sex always want to get pregnant (I think you must
know that).

Responsibility must be accepted even for accidents.  Last march I
was involved in an auto accident that could have hurt me and the other
driver seriously.  My car was totalled.  But it was my fault.  I pulled
out from a stop sign without seeing the other car.  The results of
my actions were surely unintended, but I still received a citation
and my insurance still had to pay damages.

}And what about pregnancies that are caused by total ignorance?
}Teenagers in this country are systematically kept from understanding how their 
}bodies work. *MANY* teenagers really believe that they can't
}get pregnant if they're standing up, if it's their first time,
}if they use a Coca-Cola douche, if they use any kind of a douche,
}if they use spermicide the morning after, if they insert their
}birth control pills in their vaginas, etc. Their ignorance is
}absolutely appalling and something many of the most avid
}anti-abortionists wish to *promote*. Phyllis Schlafly has
}announced that her next nationwide goal will be to *eliminate*
}sex ed from the classroom.

You make a good point here, but your reasoning still does not compel
abortion as the answer.  Today's teens are less ignorant about the
consequences of sexual activity than in the past.  You make a good
case for sex education, but not for abortion.  Do you expect teens
to become more responsible with regard to sex by removing all the
unwanted consequences of their actions?  I think it was your husband
who said that he personally thought that teens weren't ready for sex.
Why not teach them that in sex ed?  "No", comes the retort from many
pro-choicers, "that would be imposing morality, we need to let them
have the choice".  They aren't old enought to bear the responsibility
of pregnancy, so the answer is to give them free contraceptives and
abortion without parent's consent.  Don't you think that this kind
of thing teaches them a certain morality--that sex is fine because
you can avoid the consequences, and it doesn't matter what your
parents think.  You make a great deal of the notion that pregnancy
is much more risky for teens.  So is abortion.  Minors need parental
consent in many states to get their ears peirced or to be given an
aspirin at school.  Is abortion more trivial than these?

One reason for teen pregnancy that you neglected to mention (and
it's a very significant one) is moral.  Many teenage girls won't
use birth control at all because "nice girls don't plan to have
sex".  Given the irresponsibility that goes with their youth and
characterizes many things teens do, are they far from wrong?  Teens
don't understand relationships between people well enough to regard
sex responsibly.  They are much more likely to treat sex as a game
or recreation (any partner will do) than adults.  This attitude is
generally recognised as being destructive, leading to a lot of
problems for adults.  How much more so for teens?  One thing
you're going to have to do to get around this moral inhibition to birth
control is inculcate a certain morality in them; to teach them that sex is
right for them, that its OK to plan to do it.  It may be that they
are fooling themselves in thinking that they won't have sex but
the fact remains that they are doing so to avoid a *moral* dilemma.
So you either tell them that their morals are right and that they
should not only not plan to have sex but refuse the suggestion of
it, or you tell them that their morals are wrong, that it is right
for them to have sex.  The latter does less to prevent teen pregnancy
and a lot to encourage sex (with the irresponsible attitude that
teens can't help but have because of their lack of maturity).

}
}>Nobody is saying that voluntary
}>sex has only to do with pregnancy, but you can't assume it has nothing
}>to do with it either.  Is the desire to have uncommitted sex really
}>the motive behind legal abortion?  
}
}Is the desire to punish people who do have uncommitted sex really the
}motive behind making abortion illegal? If so, you're using children
}as pawns with which to punish their parents. And using children
}as pawns is not the same thing as believing that fetuses have
}some kind of absolute right to survival.

"punish" -- another word pro-choicers love.  No, irresponsiblity
insn't a crime, but it does have consequences.  You're avoiding
another question.  There is no absolute right to survival implied
for the fetus, only one that is on par with other humans and is
above the convenience and irresponsible acts of others.  I am
arguing against null rights for the fetus not for absolute rights.
I think you must know that.

}I really think that a lot of people do want to force women to
}bear children as punishment and I think the statistics back
}me up. If fetuses should be saved no matter what, then it
}shouldn't matter whether the pregnant woman has been raped or is the
}victim of incest. But, according to a poll published by THE 
}NEW YORK TIMES, about 35% more people support abortions for
}victims of rape and/or incest than support abortion on demand.
}If you want to punish people who have uncommitted sex, then
}you should be honest about it, you should find a way that doesn't
}use children for your purposes, and you should find a way that punishes
}men as much as women.

Statistics don't indicate anything with regard to the motives
people have.  Again you are setting up the straw man of absolute
rights for the fetus.  No one has absolute rights.  But does uncommitted
sex make the fetus deserving of death?

}>When they don't give them the choice of whether or not to live we
}>but them in big trouble.  Are you saying that because parents make
}>most choices for young children they have the right to decide if
}>they should die?
}
}I am not saying that parents should be allowed to choose whether or
}not they can kill their living children, but that they should
}be allowed to choose whether they have any in the first place.

Avoiding the issue of whether or not the fetus is their "living
children", again.  Everyone has the choice of whether or not to have
them in the first place.  The problem comes in always "having their
cake and eating it too".

}
}>But that assumption is thrown out when the child's health is
}>endangered by the parent.
}
}Child, yes; fetus, no.

Aren't you even going to say why?

}
}>If they had the choice between that and death?  Are there any
}>other choices?  The truth of the matter is that no one really
}>knows with any given child how well they will value their life
}>in any given situation.  Why are you making that decision for
}>them before they even have a chance to make it for themselves?
}>No one ever gets to choose where they are born.  Yet here you
}>are acting as if that choice were possible for the child, you
}>insert your own conclusion as its decision.
}
}I agree that I cannot speak for all fetuses who were aborted, but
}neither can you. We could agree to disagree & turn our attention
}toward children who are alive and need our attention. You seem to
}think it is more important to worry about fetuses.

I don't pretend to speak for fetuses, only to give them a chance
to make their own assesment of their life.  They deserve choice
in the matter.  No one can force them to live if they decide not
to (a tragedy in itself).  But you *are* making that decision for
them.  You can't speak for *any* given fetus.  Neither can I, that's
the point.

			*** continued ***
-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd