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!mhuxh!mhuxi!mhuxm!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: Re: Beyond Smugness: The Consequences Everyone Should Consider
Message-ID: <1559@pur-phy.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Dec-84 04:37:31 EST
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.1559
Posted: Wed Dec  5 04:37:31 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Dec-84 04:50:41 EST
References: <1545@pur-phy.UUCP> <308@bonnie.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Purdue Univ. Physics Dept., IN
Lines: 96

> 
> 	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.

The issue of abortion is a very complicated one, as Ed Hummel says, and
it ties in with much else in our society.  The argument about future geniuses
does not really belong here, however.  One could just as well say that abortion
also prevents future Hitlers and Pol Pots and so forth.  The other point is that
two wrongs don't make a right.  Now if we grant that an abortion is a wrong,
which I disagree with, one can also talk about having to choose the lesser
evil, instead of saying merely that two wrongs don't make a right.  Life, in
fact is full of tough decisions and difficult choices, and in most situations
none of the alternatives is easy or "right".  In saying that I disagree with
the statement that "abortion is wrong", I certainly don't mean that I think
that abortion is an "good" thing.  It isn't.  It's uncomfortable, there are
all sorts of unpleasant emotions associated with it, there are some risks
inherent in the procedure itself (although, statistically speaking, the
morbidity and mortality associated with pregnancy is greater than that of
abortion: there are things like toxemia and eclampsia which can be fatal),
and so on.  Abortion is by no means the optimal method of birth control.
The fact remains, however, that when making decisions that profoundly affect
the life of the (often teenage) mother, we ought to remember that abstractions
are all very nice, but they can have great effects on both the mother and
the child.

One of the things that our society ought to do is to provide universal and
free access to contraceptives.  Up until recently, this was not the case.
Indeed, up until 1969, it was *illegal* for a physician to provide *even*
information about contraception to women in Connecticut.  My own feeling is
that it's far better to *prevent* pregnancy than to terminate it.  The
government did not act very usefully in promulgating the "squeal" rule
a year or so back.  This rule required that parents of teenage girls who
wanted to obtain birth control were to be informed.  This would, of course,
inhibit the girls from getting contraceptives.  Now, it is true that
abstinence will prevent conception, but this is unrealistic to expect.
I'm perfectly willing to agree that 16 year olds are probably not ready for
sexual intercourse, but the fact remains that they do it.  What's better, then?
Giving the girl contraceptives (with proper instruction), or a teenage 
pregnancy?  In this case, one *has* to choose the lesser evil, which is
provision of contraceptives.

> 	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

Abortion *is* a practical solution.  It is, of course not the optimal one,
but the alternatives are worse.  In the good old days, if a woman found herself
pregnant, she had very little as far as alternatives go.  The man involved
would disappear, society would make its disapprobation very plain, family
would disown her, and so forth.  Some of this is changing, but not really very
much.  Rather than carry the fetus (or embryo, if less than three months),
women would often go to backroom abortionists.  Who were they?  They were
dirty little people using dirty little knitting needles doing dirty little
operations.  There's one fact that ought to be borne in mind about then.
The biggest cause of death of young women in those days was sepsis from
improperly done abortions.  The ones who survived were often not very lucky
either.  If abortion were made absolutely illegal, I guarantee that women
will start going back to the abortionists, and death rates will rise again.
It is no good pointing out to them that backroom abortions will often 
result in infection and death.  A lot of women will do *anything* to end
the pregnancy.  Their desperation cannot be overlooked.  Going back to
those days is not the solution, as far as I'm concerned.

These are all concrete issues, which should be addressed in this newsgroup.
I find myself disheartened when I read the insults hurled back and forth
between people here.  This is a real issue, a serious one, and an important
one.  Vituperation does not optimize discussion of the issues and useless
namecalling does not do justice to the importance of this matter.  I'd
like to see the discussions carried on in a more fraternal manner.  Discussions
about when "life" arises are all very nice in the ivory tower, and I like to
know what others think about them, but the point of the philosophy, eventually,
is to arrive at some sort of consensus about what to do.  The problem is a
very difficult one, and to say "life is sacred" doesn't do anything about
solving it.  If abortion is outlawed, which I think is the  wrong thing to
do, then we would have to address the fact that a lot of women will *die*
because of that.  If they carry their pregnancies to term, then we will have
to face the issue that there will be a lot of children (and some of the 
mothers are children themselves) who will be abused badly by people who are
in no position to be parents.  The recent news about child abuse sickens me.
To say that these kids will be adopted is not solution either, since most of
them will not be.  So what do we do?  Feeling strongly about this matter is
all very well, but I often get the impression that some people writing in are
much more interested in their own egos and showing how holy they are and
what good Christians they are an so forth.  They do no justice to either
their religion or to the problem at hand.  Let's try to figure out what
we agree on and henceforth carry the discussion from there. There are a lot
more issues to abortion than is evident at first glance.