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.