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 (3rd of 4)
Message-ID: <4342@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Dec-84 10:23:57 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4342
Posted: Wed Dec 12 10:23:57 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Dec-84 02:50:52 EST
References: <1545@pur-phy.UUCP> <4261@cbscc.UUCP>, <1566@pur-phy.UUCP>, <4327@cbscc.UUCP>, <4328@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 203

}
}>What good has abortion on demand done for child abuse statistics?
}>Can you show us?  Is there any correlation between how much
}>parents want the pregnanacy and how much they want the child after
}>it's born?  Two can play this came of inference also.  The free
}>availability of abortion might actually encourage attitudes that
}>foster child abuse.  Once the child is born the "choice" of parent-
}>hood is suddenly gone.  When the going gets rough there might be
}>temption to think that this loss of choice is unfair.  After all,
}>they didn't really know what to expect, and if they had only
}>thought about it a few months earlier they could have nipped
}>their problems in the bud.  It's easy for resentment to build
}>against the child.  If the child is abused, it's taken away
}>and society supports it.  There you have an abused child that
}>was "wanted" during pregnancy.  You may rightly argue that I
}>have presented no data to support this connection.  But that is
}>my point.  You have presented none to support yours either.
}>Has child abuse really become less of a problem in the 13 years
}>that we have had abortion on demand?
}
}I know that child abuse has been an under-reported & unacknowledged
}problem for a long, long time. There simply are not good statistics
}available for *today* much less for 10 or 20 years ago.
}The most common one available for today is that child abuse
}exists in one out of six homes. Although child abuse certainly
}happens in well-to-do and middle income households, a sudden
}drop in income is frequently taken out on children, which is why
}recessions always lead to an increase in the number of child
}abuse cases. There is also proportionately more child abuse in houses 
}that have lower incomes. 

This says nothing about how abortion helps child abuse.
Maybe you will admit that you can't use child abuse statistics
to justify abortion?

}What *is* clearly set forth in statistics is that teenage
}mothers generally make bad mothers--nearly 70% of them abuse
}(or so severely neglect their children that it's counted as abuse)
}their children, and contrary to your assertion, I think most
}teenage pregnancies are involuntary. Teenagers & other poor women
}do not have access (or have limited access) to abortions for
}financial reasons. Teenagers and other poor women also have limited
}access to information about birth control for economic reasons.
}Therefore, while there is a correlation among being poor, having
}children one does not want, and abusing one's children, I can't
}say that it's a cause and effect relationship, no.
}But I think our first obligation is to the children who are here,
}and being abused now--not to fetuses who may well end up in
}the same position.

A more useful statistic would be what percentage of abused children
are those of teenage mothers?  How feasible is that adoption alternative
to pregnant teens?  The legal complications
need to be smoothed out so as to offer less of an obstacle both
for the woman and the prospective parents.  Also, how does abortion
help the problem?  You seemed to be stressing lots of cause and effect
relationships in your other article.  I think my scenario above is
as reasonable as any of yours.  I don't see why abortion on demand
could not also contribute to child abuse.  What logic compels the parents
to be "forced" into parenthood by the event of birth?  After all they
could just as easily maintian that the consequences of their decision
to give birth are unwanted (now that they know what they are).  What
if their child is "unadoptable"?

}
}>Does all this really mean that people are wrong to oppose abortion?
}>You might argue rightly that they are somewhat hyprocritical, but
}>what a hypocrite says may still be right.  My wife and I can answer
}>"yes" to many the above questions and know many pro-life people
}>who could say "yes" to the rest of them.  Partially because of
}>that we don't have time to picket clinics (though some have).
}
}There seem to be at least two major anti-abortion movements in
}this country. There is the vocal one--that pickets and/or bombs
}clinics; associates itself with pro-nuclear, pro-military groups;
}lobbies against disseminating information about contraceptives;
}lobbies against tougher child-abuse laws; is blatantly misogynist;
}lobbies against regulating industries whose hazardous wastes
}cause spontanteous abortions and/or birth defects; lobbies against
}government-sponsored programs to nourish poor, pregnant women; etc.,

You had better name names.  What group(s) does all this?  How do
you expect us to separate ourselves from them? (See below)

}etc.--and there is the quieter one. You say that your anti-abortionist
}friends are not like the noisy one. If that is so, then why
}do you allow the current anti-abortion lobby to speak for you? 
}Why do you not disassociate yourself from them? Loudly?  People will not
}respect a message broadcast by blatant hypocrites, or at least,
}they won't respect it for long.

I'm afraid it is very unrealistic to dichotomize the prolife movement
in this way.  Which lobby are you talking about?  How do you know
I let them speak for me?  These two groups seem to be your own invention
and you seem to be associating different people with them as you see
fit.

}
}>If you are pro-choice, how may of your own questions can you answer?
}
}Well, I've only been married for two months. And my husband and
}I currently can't even live in the same state. Just how many kids
}do you think we should have adopted by now? My point was that
}if you're going to force people to have kids, then *you* ought to
}be willing to take care of them. And you ought to be able to show how 
}willing and able you *are* to take care of such kids by showing that
}you've essentially done everything necessary for the ones who came before.
}I've never advocated forcing anyone to have kids.

Did you consider the individual circumstances of those you blame
as being hypocrites?  I don't think so.  You only consisidered their
general philosophy (anti-abortion).  I've never advocated forcing anyone
to have kids either that is a motive that you impute to the prolife
philosophy.

}
}>How much help the Planned Parenthood give to couples who *want* to
}>have children rather than prevent them?  
}
}Planned Parenthood is not & has never claimed to be a center for total 
}gynecological care. Its primary mission *is* to deliver birth control
}devices/information to women. The other kinds of things it does
}(PAP smears, VD tests & info on pre-natal care) are low-cost,
}low tech services that PP can easily offer in addition to its
}birth control mission. Fertility clinics are fairly specialized,
}expensive and often high tech operations. You are essentially
}criticizing PP for not being something that it never claimed
}to be--it makes about as much sense to hassle MIT for not offering
}a good liberal arts education.

I think you better look into the history of PP a little bit harder.
They used to have policy against abortion.  If their purpose has
always been to help prevent children then the least they could to
is call themselves "Planned Non-parenthood" (only half joking here).
I was not claiming that PP should assume the operations of a
fertility clinic (those are for people having trouble getting pregnant).
Just that they should offer a little help in normal cases where
a couple needs advice on how to prepare for having children.

}>I know a woman who went
}>to PP for birth control and received help with that (and we all help
}>them with part of our tax money don't we?) 
}
}No.

Are you saying PP receives no federal funding?  You are wrong.  They
emphasize that federal money does not go to fund their abortion efforts,
but it certainly helps them thrive while doing that on the side.  A recent
measure was passed to prevent organizations that recieve federal funds
from using that money to support their lobbying efforts.  PP was one
of those organizations.  They vigorously opposed it, needless to say.

}
}>but when she wanted to get
}>pregnant they told her she was on her own.  Is this offering equal
}>support for both choices?  The PP clinic here provides not-for-profit
}>abortions but in cases where people *want* to have children and
}>have problems they are on their own ... and they are the "pro-lifer's"
}>problem.  
}
}I hate to burden you with the views of your vocal anti-abortion friends
}throughout the country, but a lot of anti-abortionists get pretty
}bent out of shape with fertility clinics also--some of the techno-
}logical innovations that these clinics have pioneered to
}help the infertile are highly disturbing to anti-abortionists.
}I will leave it to them to explain why to you ('cause I don't
}know), but I don't think a lot of anti-abortionists see
}fertility problems as their own.

Don't bother with giving me this burden, then.  I have no friends
who are against fertility clinics.  If you want to discuss specific
innovations of these clinics instead of being vague, then by all
means do so.  Here you seem to be implying that pro-lifers are
against couples wanting to get pregnant.  Seems funny since before
you said that they "force" women to be pregnant.

}
}>Or are we going to help them with the attitude that "it
}>would be best if you had had an abortion but..."  You do very well
}>to point out the uncaring attitude of many pro-lifers but don't you
}>think these issues cut both ways for pro-choicers too?
}
}Who said that people who were pro-choice were against fertility
}clinics? Most of the protest comes from anti-abortionists; not from us.

You introduced the notion of being agains fertility clinics.
Nice, the way you've twisted the argument here.  To untangle it
a bit, my point was that how much concern is there among pro-choice
people for those who  make the choice to keep their children?  It
seems to me that, implicit in your attitude toward teenage mothers,
poor mothers, and anyone else in a difficult pregnancy situation, there
is the belief that abortion is the "best choice" for such people.
Consequently, if they won't get an abortion, they are the pro-lifer's
problem.  What if the teenage mother doesn't want an abortion?  Do you
help her with that choice?  If you are really pro-choice you should.
Are pro-choicers doing anything to make options other than abortion more
available?

			*** continued ***

-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd