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: Beyond "Prolife" Smugness: The Consequences They Never Thought of
Message-ID: <4261@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Dec-84 13:51:55 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4261
Posted: Wed Dec  5 13:51:55 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Dec-84 06:07:47 EST
References: <1545@pur-phy.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 248

>
>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? 

For the sake of argument let's assume that the fact that many
children are "unadoptable" justifies abortion.  But it only justifies
it *in those cases*.  The abortion of a child somebody wants is
still totally unjustified.  So then is the answer to allow abortion
only for the mothers of such children?  I think that this
line would generally fall along ethinic and racial boundries.  We would
end up aborting the children of racial minorities way out of proportion
to their representation in society.  Does the degree of "wantedness"
of a human individual by others determine their value as human beings?
I would be nice if everyone were wanted, but I don't think the fact
that they're not makes anyone less human, less deserving of their own
chance at life.

I think that if children of minorities are unadoptable it shows that
in the values of many there is a racial bias that is in itself, wrong.
It seems to me that you are suggesting that we accommodate that bias
by allowing abortion in such cases.  But what about abortion potentially
adoptable babies?  It seems we have to allow it there too so as not
to be discriminatory in our abortion policy even though abortion in
such cases would be totally unjustified by your criterion.  What should
happen in cases like that in Indiana where an infant with Down's Syndrome
was allowed to starve to death at its parent's wishes when there were
couples wanting to adopt it?

What does this attitude do for the handicapped and the illegitimate
and poor children and adults that are with us today?  Are we telling
them that it would have been better if they had been aborted (irrespective
of whether or not they are/were adopted)?  

Sometimes I have wondered why so many insist that the government must
take on the burden of the poor and needy.  Government bureaucracy has
often proven to be most expensive, least efficient, and most impersonal
way of taking care of such needs.  We can always blame the government
for the poor and hungry.  But I think the emphasis should be on citizen
invlovment in meeting those needs.  The government treats our tax money
like an infinite resource and it's money often comes with strings attached
or the threat of its removal is used coercively.  I think that if we
really cared we'd quit blaming the government and starting doing it better
ourselves.  Paying our taxes is no virtue when it comes to helping
the underpriledged.  I think we pay a high premium for giving government
that responsibility.  It doesn't matter who's in the White House.
This is not to say that some government programs aren't justified but
I don't think they need to be the main vehicle in our efforts to help.
Surely the trend needs to be in the opposite direction.  Why should you
assume that because a person doesn't think the government should be
meeting all the needs of the less priviledged they don't care about
those people at all?  How do you know what they are not personally doing
to help?

>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. 

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.  Pregnancy is only
involuntary as the result of rape.  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?  

>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.

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?

>The usual assumption is
>that parents know more about what is good for their children
>than the child does.

But that assumption is thrown out when the child's health is
endangered by the parent.

>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 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.

>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...  [Continues by explaining the choices for abused children]

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?

>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.

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).

If you are pro-choice, how may of your own questions can you answer?
How much help the Planned Parenthood give to couples who *want* to
have children rather than prevent them?  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?) 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.  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?

>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.

It is only consistent for pro-lifers to care just as much for the born
as the unborn and I think, as a people, they do.  Not all pro-life people
picket clinics.   Some work in pregnancy distress centers like my wife
and Liz.  Some are involved in combatting child abuse (or did you think
only pro-choice people did that?) and some are helping in prisions where
a lot of those kids end up (like Charles Colson -- I know he's pro-life).
His Prision Fellowship organization is more active in meeting the needs
of prisoners and pushing for criminal justice reform than many I can
think of.  You seem to require an equal level of involvement in all
these areas from every pro-life individual (at least the ones who picket
PP -- Was Liz one of them?)  Do you have the same standard for yourself?
After all your burden should be lighter.  You need care only about the
"living", not the unborn.  We have to consider the unborn a subset of the
living.  All the areas you mention are important.  But if the unborn
are included in the "living" then they are equally important.

In a subsequent article to this one you make a plea for fraternal discussion
of this issue.  It's a very worthwile goal, but you need to help too.
Perhaps, from your own standpoint, you can see how hard this is.
It seems that you have used your experience with name calling, clinic
bombing "pro-lifers" to brow beat Liz in this case.  Fraternity requires
that we treat each other as individuals and not bring the "sins" of other
people on them.  It is hard to convey a civil tone in writing, especially
on issues like this.  I have been read as being angry when I thought
I was making an effort to sound reasonable.  Clearly I need more practice,
but I have learned to give others the benefit of my doubts.

-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd