Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site pur-phy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxn!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:pur-phy!act
From: act@pur-phy.UUCP (Alex C. Tselis)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Beyond "Prolife" Smugness: The Consequences They Never Thought of
Message-ID: <1545@pur-phy.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Dec-84 20:21:04 EST
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.1545
Posted: Mon Dec  3 20:21:04 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Dec-84 09:12:15 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Purdue Univ. Physics Dept., IN
Lines: 188

Below are some observations made by my wife about the recent brouhaha about
the antiabortion film.  I should add that I am in agreement with her.  I    
also feel that there has been too much discussion of rarefied abstractions
in this net group, and that people have gotten bogged down in discussions
which resemble nothing so much as the Medieval philosophers' debates about
saturation of pinheads with dancing angels.  I thought that I'd contribute
my wife's discussion because it raises some real and concrete issues which
may help keep the discussions down to earth.

------------------------------------------------
Re: Ms. Allen
What seems singularly absent from all the discussion of
abortion is any mention of *children,* the invitable result of
non-aborted pregnancies. Ms. Allen mentions with pride that
she belongs to a group that places pregnant women with
families while they're pregnant. Er, yes, Ms. Allen, but then
what? The much touted "solution" of adoption really only works
in those instances where the baby is in *perfect* physical &
metal health, is white & has a mother who is willing to give
it up. Otherwise, you have a woman who:
a) is usually alone
b) is likely to be underpaid because of sexual discrimination
and/or interrupted education
c) has to juggle taking care of the kid & a job
(or welfare, but there's not so much of that to go around
these days)
d) frequently is a child herself
e) frequently has a sick or handicapped child, espcially if d) is true
f) may not be in such great shape herself, especially if d) is true.
Who then takes care of that baby? Who pays for it? And
who continues to take care of and pay for that child on an ongoing basis
for 18 years as it grows from a cute little infant into a
child and then an adolescent? What happens if that "delicately
formed" little fetus grows up to be a severely handicapped
little baby? We, as a country, have shown (by re-electing our
"pro-life" prez) that we do not want the government to feed or
care for poor or handicapped children. If that pregnant mother
whom you have so kindly placed with some family cannot take
care of her child, just who will? 
The point is, parenthood is a commitment. And commitments that
aren't entered into voluntarily aren't too likely to be kept.
In fact, the law recognizes that most commitments that
one was coerced into making are not legally binding.
But what the anti-abortionists seem to be arguing is that the
responsibilities of parenthood are so trivial, so irrelevant,
so beside the point that parenthood is the kind of commitment
that one can be forced to make with no bad effects.
Would anyone make the same kind of argument about any other
commitment? In some ways, marriage is a "lesser" commitment
than parenthood because if one partner is unable to keep his/er
commitment, the other partner is nonetheless capable of taking care of
him/erself. Yet who, in this country at least, argues that
people should have no choice about if/when & whom they
marry? One's responsibilities as a spouse are so much less than
one's as a parent & yet *parenthood* is what people are trying
impose on others. 
I have heard anti-abortionists claim that pro-choice advocates
don't give the fetuses any choice. That is certainly true. But
parents don't give their children, especially their younger
children, much choice about anything. The usual assumption is
that parents know more about what is good for their children
than the child does. 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? If Ms. Allen wishes to
sensationalize things, she should remember that two can play
that game. And she should remember that the child abuse
statistics--& the nation's response to child abuse--are
appalling enough that they really don't need to be
sensationalized.
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?
The second option for abused children is that they can run
away. Children who run away are treated like criminals if they
are caught & sent to state institutions (see below for more
details on those "humane" institutions). If they survive on the streets, 
they do so by breaking the law. One of the most common ways is by becoming
prostitutes. There is of course, shoplifting and drug pushing
or some combination of the three. Virtually every violent (&
many of the non-violent) offenders in our nation's prison
system were abused children, Ms. Allen. 
The third option is to tell someone. If you has an extended
family near by that is willing to believe you & that is willing
to risk alienating the abusive parent, this is probably the
best solution. But how many children are that lucky? If you
doesn't have a supportive relative, there is always the
state. Ah, the state. Virtually every one of the 50 states'
"juvenile justice" systems are at worst appalling & at best,
non-uniformly mediocore. If a complaint is
made about a child being abused, usually only that child is removed 
from the home at that time--the rest have to be beaten first to be removed.
What happens to the battered child? S/he is sent to a foster home--if 
there is one open. (If all the children in a family are taken out
at one time there is no guarantee--in fact little
likelihood--that the siblings will be kept together.)
Foster homes may or may not be carefully selected--depending
on the state/social worker/whatever--& children are likely to be
abused in foster homes, also. What if there are no foster
homes available? Then there are those charming warehouses for
tots--those training schools for little crimminals known as
state institutions. Not only are victims of child abuse
routinely put in the same kind of institutions as say,
children who throw knives at their teachers, they are also
subject to all kinds of abuse in these institutions. Older
inmates may rape them, the staff may rape them, the staff may
beat them, older kids may beat them & at the same time, the
lesson they are learning best is how to become an adult criminals.
You spoke of there needing to be a "window on abortion." I
have just given you a "window" on how this country treats its
children. And lest you think that I am only talking about some
small number of children, remember that child abuse is
estimated to take place in 1 out of 6 homes. And that child
abuse occurs in the homes of the well-to-do as well as in the
homes of the poor. America &
America's parents have failed miserably in their commitment to 
their children. (Actually, I just told you about abused
children. I didn't even address the issues of
children who not abused but who are undernourished or children
who are handicapped & have to live in other kinds of
institutions.) Yet you wish to inflict this kind of torture
on more children.
When I go to Planned Parenthood to get my birth control pills,
I am met by angry protesters who scream nasty things at me &
at whoever goes to that clinic. These women spend hours of
their time & effort & even money to force parenthood on the
unwilling and the unable. (What they basically succeed in
doing is scaring away teenagers who want birth control devices
& then the teenagers get pregnant & then some of them are more
scared of pregnancy than the protesters so they go in & have
abortions. Or, to put it another way, these brilliant
anti-abortionists probably cause more abortions than they
prevent.) Yet they are unwilling to do
anything for children who are alive now. I have asked everyone of those 
women how many handicapped children have they adopted. The answer is
always zero. I have asked them how many interracial children
they have adopted. Zero again. How many children who were not
babies have they adopted? Zero yet again. Have they ever
adopted any babies at all? No. Have they ever taken in foster
children? No. What charities do they work on? Basically
anti-abortion outfits. Have they ever funded a clinic similar
to Planned Parenthood (except that it wouldn't do abortions)?
No. Have they ever given poor women money to get either birth
control or PAP smears? Of course not.
Is it possible (as Letty Cottin Pogrebin suggests) that these
people don't give a damn about children but only about
pregnancy? 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. Just *imagine*
the difference it would make if the energy & the money put
into the anti-abortion movement were spent on living children
instead! Think of how beneficial it would be for everyone
if the women who warp themselves by hissing "Nazi" at me or by bombing
abortion clinics were to turn that emotional energy into love
for living children! 
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.