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 (1st of 4) Message-ID: <4327@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 11-Dec-84 18:29:47 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.4327 Posted: Tue Dec 11 18:29:47 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 12-Dec-84 06:05:21 EST References: <1545@pur-phy.UUCP> <4261@cbscc.UUCP>, <1566@pur-phy.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 212 This is a response to Alex Tselis' wife's response to me. I have forgotten her name and she didn't sign it to this article. I have broken it up into four smaller articles. }>For the sake of argument let's assume that the fact that many }>children are "unadoptable" justifies abortion. } }Okay, but let's be clear about *why* their being "unadoptable" justifies }abortion. Babies are not "unadoptable" because there aren't sufficient }resources in this country (at least) to take care of them; they're }unadoptable because there isn't sufficient *will* in this country }to take care of them. Lots of childless couples love children very }much and are more than happy to open their homes up to them-- }provided, of course, that they're babies, white & in absolutely }perfect health (it is my understanding that even a very minor, treatable }birth defect such as one that discolors a portion of the face is sufficient }to render a baby "unadoptable.") I have a hard time believing that the baby must be absolutely perfect to be adoptable. If a pregnant woman wants to place her baby for adoption she can be matched with a couple who will commit to pay for her medical bills. The prospective parents are more than willing to do this because they want the baby to be healthy. So there's less chance for birth defects. But the woman has to know what help is available to her. It's tough to place your baby for adoption, even if you want to. It's true that black and bi-racial babies are harder to place, but many adoption agencies still prefer placing them in similiar homes where they will "fit in". That's not to say they discourage it, just that they do consider the environment that the child will be growing up in. The waiting list for infants here is 7 years. This even with private adoption agencies with less red tape to go through. The legal adoption system in this country works against those who want to adopt. Ask someone who has tried. The fastest way is if you know someone who knows someone who wants to give their baby to *you*. ( Courts usually won't let unrelated couples adopt a baby who's mother they know). Even then the legal complications are no small obstacle. I see no lack of "will" to take care of them, more of the lack of means. The hassles involved discourage many, regardless of the baby's "adoptability" by your standards. I will agree that adoptability criterion need to be broadened, but not only in the minds of people wanting to adopt and I don't see abortion as a help to the problem. If anything it is an accomodation of it. If we can get rid of "unadoptables" before they are born, is that any incentive to care about them when they are? }Children in this country do not grow up without food because there }is not enough food to go around--that happens because not enough }people care enough about children to see that all are well fed. }Children do not grow up abused or neglected because there are not }enough people and resources to care for them better--this happens }because, again, the *will* to make this country a reasonable place }for children to live is lacking. I think justifying abortion in this criterion is to accomodate such an attitude, even encourage it. }With so many children who are already alive who need all of our }love and attention and care, I do not see how it is right to }bring *unwanted* children into the world. There are plenty }right now who very much need someone to want them--until }we take care of *them,* what right do we have to add to their }number? I'm afraid that we have already added to their number once a woman is pregnant. I know you don't believe that, but you are not giving any reasons why you don't consider the unborn to be living humans. You haven't discussed that issue. }>But it only justifies }>it *in those cases*. The abortion of a child somebody wants is }>still totally unjustified. } }How does any pregnant woman or especially teenage girl (since }her children are more likely to have birth defects) know that }her baby is going to be sufficiently perfect to be "adoptable?" If a child is "more likely of have birth defects" you would treat it as if it definetly does and reccomend that it be aborted? If you think birth defects are good criteria for aborting, then I think it would be more human of you to advocate that we wait until we are sure that the child has a defect and is unadoptable then kill them. Why should the significant percentage of those born without defects also have to die? Is that a fair application of the ideal of "choice"? } }>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. } }It seems as if you are suggesting that women who suffer unwanted }pregnancies should be forced to serve as breeders for predominantly }white, middle class couples, simply because those couples want }to be able to adopt a certain kind of child. No. My point was that you were suggesting that "adoptable" children die because many others are "unadoptable". You're avoiding my point. That is that you cannot justify abortion on demand because some are "unadoptable". Also if these unadoptable ones are disproportionate with respect to race, then your criterion carries an inherent racial bias. }>Does the degree of "wantedness" }>of a human individual by others determine their value as human beings? } }I'm sorry, I just don't view embryos or young fetuses as human }beings--and it doesn't matter whether they're wanted or not. You're getting closer to the main issue here. What determines if a being is human, then? }My sister-in-law is pregnant with my first niece/nephew who is very }much a wanted child. But if my sister-in-law's health was such }that she & my brother had to choose between her life & the fetus', }it would be my sister-in-law who would live. You are talking }as if every human & potential human had the same absolute }value to his/er life--I am saying that when one chooses between }the living and the unborn, the living have a greater value. No, judging between the life of the mother and fetus (if it comes to that) is not the issue here. I was making that point above that whether or not a person is "wanted" by another makes no difference as to whether that person should live or die. In cases where pregnancy threatens that mother there is often no choice but to do an abortion. Even Catholic hospitals that don't do elective abortions or even sterilization recognise this. The attitude there though is that they have lost a patient (the unborn child) with the associated grief. } }>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. } }I could not agree with you more. Yet we disagree on what the answer should include. }>It seems to me that you are suggesting that we accommodate that bias }>by allowing abortion in such cases. } }No, I am not because I am suggesting that we allow abortion in all }cases in which the pregnant woman wishes it--you were constructing the }hypothetical situation in which some women served as breeders for }others. I did not construct that situation. You did. Then you imputed it to me. Forcing women to be breeders implies that I force them to get pregnant. More along these lines later. }>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? } }I have answered the bulk of this paragraph earlier. Re: the IN case. }I think you are understating the dilemma that the parents of that baby }faced, although I don't think that I would have made the same decision that }they did. However, that was also not an }abortion case. As for the people who wished to adopt that one, }publicized baby, didn't anyone tell them that there are thousands }of much less severely handicapped infants and children languishing }in institutions? How sincere were these people? I never said it was an abortion case. We were talking about "unadoptable" children (because of defects) justifying abortion. The baby was publicized because it was being starved to death for its defect. Do the children in institutions face the same fate? Are all those children really up of adoption? It doesn't make sense to infer that these people weren't sincere because they wouldn't adopt children with lesser defects who are not facing forced starvation. If I'm not mistaken at least one of the couples had a Down's Syndrome baby of their own. You seem to be forcing this particular incident of fit your generalizations. }>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)? } }I am saying that it would be better if we pay attention to *them* }and stop ignoring them in favor of fetuses. We can never change }their past, but there's a lot we can do for their present & }future. There are people paying attention to them, including people who are prolife. Below you claim that you don't require an equal level of committment from prolife individuals to every human need. But clearly here you are telling people who are disagreeing with you on whether or not the fetus is human that they ought to be doing something you think is more important. Without even discussing the issue of fetal rights you're asking them to agree with you on that position anyway by diverting their energies from it. The unborn are as important as other people in the prolife view. And NO ONE recognises the rights of the fetus except prolife people. This seems to be an attempt to divert prolifers from a cause that they exculsively support. Some guilt trip. Blame their involvement in the prolife movement for other human problems in the world. *** continued *** -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd