Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uscvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!uscvax!kurtzman
From: kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Birth Control??
Message-ID: <72@uscvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Oct-85 14:27:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: uscvax.72
Posted: Fri Oct 18 14:27:52 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 04:49:49 EDT
References: <1989@reed.UUCP> <367@cylixd.UUCP> <63@uscvax.UUCP> <64@uscvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: kurtzman@usc-cse.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman)
Organization: CS&CE Depts, U.S.C., Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 65

In article <64@uscvax.UUCP> phillips@usc-cse.UUCP (Marlene Phillips) writes:
>
>I recently had the appalling experience of looking up "birth control"
>in the local Yellow Pages.  Fully 75% of all listings proclaimed
>"abortions to the 24th week".  Is this what is considered birth
>control these days? (Obviously from the YP listings, some people
>think it is.)  Pro-abortionists who claim that abortion is not
>intended to be used as birth control have some explaining to do
>about this, I believe.

I am not a pro-abortionist, Marlene, but I will explain this.
I picked up a copy of a GTE yellow pages directory and looked up "Abortion".
I found the following:

 Abortion & Abortion Alternatives
  see
  Attorneys
  Birth Control Information Centers
  Clergy
  Clinics
  Social Service Organizations
  Women's Organizations & Services

A copy of a Pacific Bell yellow pages directory had no entry for Abortion
at all. It seems that the telephone companies don't want a section listing
only abortionists. GTE is even trying to suggest that women contemplating
abortion see the Clergy. It sounds like a way the phone companies can allow
anti-abortion ads alongside ads for abortion clinics. Think about it. It
would be improper to allow an anti-abortion ad in a section headed
"Abortion".

You shouldn't be so upset. This strategy can only help the anti-abortion
counseling groups. A woman seeking an abortion clinic through the telephone
directory will also see anti-abortion ads. This gives the anti-abortion
counseling centers exposure to the people they want to counsel (that is to
people seeking abortions).

As for abortion as birth control: it certainly is a radical form of birth
control. I don't know of anyone that promotes it in place of contraception.
Most people probably do feel that selecting abortion over contraception is
repugnant and amoral. From a practical point of view it is stupid for a
woman to forego relativly harmless forms of contraception in favor of a more
dangerous medical operation. Some pro-abortionists (those that own clinics
perhaps) may advocate abortion as an alternative to contraception but they
do not represent the pro-choice side.

>
>BTW, for those who believe that abortion after the 7th month is
>illegal:  the last I heard, you can get an abortion ANY TIME if
>you can get your doctor to agree that it would be physically or
>_emotionally_ damaging for you to continue the pregnancy.
>
>			Marlene Phillips


Is it unreasonable to allow the medical profession to make medical
decisions? I doubt you would say that a woman whose life was physically
threatened by birth should be forced to give birth. Why should emotional
damage be different from physical damage? If there are physicians that
capriciously claim pending emotional harm to justify late abortions they are
guilty of malpractice. They can (and should) be stopped under current law.
If a fetus is viable outside the mothers body then a caesarian section would
probably be a better alternative to abortion. I have no doubt that any
physician that performs an abortion on a viable fetus could be found guilty
of manslaughter under current law unless there were mitigating circumstances.