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: Re: The "day-after" pill
Message-ID: <4370@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Dec-84 12:20:21 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4370
Posted: Fri Dec 14 12:20:21 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Dec-84 02:35:45 EST
References: <4315@cbscc.UUCP>, <158@mhuxr.UUCP> <4343@cbscc.UUCP>, <164@mhuxr.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 97

}From Marcel Simon

}> Paul Dubuc 
}> I agree with the need for study, but you don't reason against the
}> problems I suggested.  You seem of favor ignoring them while extoling
}> the "benefits":
}> 
}You seem to be in favor of ignoring the DAF while trumpeting its problems

I don't see much benifit in abortion on demand, as you would expect.
It's probably not as safe to ignore problems as it would be to ignore
supposed benefits, anyway.

}> This is justification for extreme measures?  Do you understand the
}> variety of atrocities that can easily be put in the category of "forced
}> family planning"?  Who's doing the planning when the planning is forced?
}> Who chooses the method?
}> 
}Do you understand the position of a hospital or doctor who has to decide
}"I have only one set of [IV | medicine | etc]; this one will die tonight
}anyway, so let's give it to that one, who *might* make it till tomorrow"?
}Is that not *also* an atrocity? Is it not atrocious of a government
}to say "we can only feed 1.5 Billion a day, so the extra 500 million
}will have to die" (this is essentially what third world governments
}have to say, because of scarce resources) There must be family planning.

Lack of resources my make death unavoidable in many situations where
"life boat ethics" are applied.  It does not therefore justify active,
avoidable killing, such that I believe abortion is.  The doctor with only
on IV is making an unavoidable choice required by the immediate situation.
Abortion is not analogous to this.

}Family planning is far easier in a country like the US, because informatin
}is easily available. In the third world, which has to fight hunger,
}overpopulation and ignorance at the same time, the state may have
}to take action "for the people's good" I realize that is a loaded
}statement, but I frankly don't see much choice. Remember, you are
}up against a culture that says, to quote a Haitian proverb, that
}"children are a poor man's riches" What is involved here is a change
}in entire nations' mind set about having children. I don't mean to condone
}the evil done in the name of family planning, but arbitrarily removing
}abortion or the DAF pill or anything from the list of options is
}like sending a man into battle with one arm tied behind its back.

I would think it would be better for you to try to change their minds
than to force family planning on them.  Isn't this taking a step beyond
the "pro-choice" stance.  If the Haitians believe that "children are
a poor man's riches" that represents what they chose to believe.  Are
you justified in cancelling out that choice, because *you* think it's
wrong?  No.  Convice them otherwise first.

}
}> There are plenty of birth control methods (the morning after pill
}> is an abortifacient) that have the same advantage over the current Pill.

}Which ones??

With the advantage of haveing no withdrawal period?  Come now, you
can think of some.

}> If third world people see
}> hope for a brighter future they may voluntarily limit their population.
}> Lower the infant mortality rate so they can see that family planning
}> can be done with the confidence that their progeny won't die out.
}> Does forced family planning lead to a better future?  How?
}
}That is part of the vicious circle. Without population control,
}there IS no hope of a better future. Lowering the infant mortality
}rate without ALSO vigorously addressing the overpopulation problem
}will make the latter worse.

It may be a circle, but our disagreement is over where the starting
point should be.  You say it's forced family planning.  I think its
changing conditions to lead to voluntary family planning.  Forcibly
reducing a country's population will do little to change the thinking
of the people, still less to give them hope for the future.  Children
*are* their future.  Right now all they can see is that the more they
have the more likley for some to survive.  Is forcing them to cut
back going to make them feel any better?

}> Abortion is the "easy answer" suggested <...>
}
}The very problem is that there are NO "easy answers". One need
}to look at all possible solutions.

The fact that a solution is possible, does not mean it should be
used.  That is my feeling about abortion.  I think abortion is
touted as the easy answer to all the problems I mentioned.  It's
easy to end a life to eliminate the "problems" associated with
that life's existence.


Thanks for improving the tone of our discussion, Marcel.
I appreciate it.
-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd