NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/talk/abortion/32156

Text File | 1992-08-17 | 5.5 KB | 110 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!usenet
From: [e-mail] (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: What are the pros and cons of abortion, *practically speaking*?
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of Mon, 17 Aug 92 18:43:05 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: uhad1.admin.uh.edu
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
References:  <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:21:38 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20
Lines: 95

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

> It seems to me that this nation will never come together and agree on
> a stance towards abortion, so I'm trying to work the debate out for
> myself in practical terms -- that is, without attention to "religion"
> or "moral values", both of which are subjective.  Which stance would
> make the lesser impact on the smaller number of people?  Which stance
> would affect people's lives the least?

  Religion you can get around.  Unfortunately, you can't dodge the "moral
values" bit.  Most people's stances are based on a particular interpretation
of moral values.  We might avoid the morals and argue strictly on economic
grounds, but since economics also lead towards a triage most of us don't
want engage in (who lives, who dies, and who gets to decide), it is unlikely
to work alone.

[deletions]

> Also, making abortions illegal today might well have the same effect
> as making liquor illegal in the 1920's: if abortion is outlawed, then
> only outlaws will have abortions.  Women who are desperate enough (and
> abortion is _not_ a choice that a woman makes lightly, I'd think)
> would either find a doctor willing to perform the abortion illegally,
> or else try to abort by themselves; neither situation can be very safe.

  Instances of illegal (and very dangerous) abortions took place before
Roe made it legal throughout the US.  You can guarantee that history will
repeat.  That's what all those coat-hangers stand for.

> What's the pro-life side?  That taking the life of a fetus is *wrong*.
> I believe that taking the life of a person is wrong, but I make the
> distinction that a fetus isn't a person, just as an animal isn't a
> person and a man who's been in a coma for three years has ceased to be
> a person -- the concept of 'person', to me, implies the ability to
> communicate, to have emotions, and to think intelligently (be
> sentient).  This definition is still evolving in my mind because it's
> so ambiguous, but I'm fairly certain in my belief that a fetus isn't a
> person _yet_; thus I don't know that I subscribe to the belief that
> taking the life of a fetus is wrong; thus the pro-life side appears to
> be on somewhat shaky ground.

  This is a moral judgement (see, you can't get away from'em) on whether
or not its okay to terminate a *potential* human life.  No, a fetus is
not a person *yet*, no doubt.  But it can be, again, no doubt.

  The question is a moral one:  Does the woman's right to control supercede
the "right" of the potential person to be made actual?  Currently the law
says that that the woman's right is stronger until the 3rd trimester.
That it should remain so is what 90% of the screaming is about.

> And if human life is so sacred that it must be sustained even when it
> puts a great burden on other lives, then why do we execute criminals
> instead of jailing them until they die?  Sure, keeping a criminal in
> jail instead of killing him is a great waste of his life and a great
> waste of our money, but then so isn't forcing a mother to raise her child?

  There are differing opinions on capital punishment.  The only one that holds
any water with me is that in killing the criminal, you know he will not commit
whatever heinous crime put him there again.  And it is not known if that is
cheaper than just letting them sit in jail until death.

  Abortion is cheaper than pregnancy and raising the child, though.  Though
I think people may disagree with you on whether that money is wasted.

> The only good thing I hear the pro-lifers suggesting is putting
> unwanted children up for adoption.  But this doesn't help a mother who
> never wanted to suffer pregnancy and birth in the first place, nor
> does it help when all the unwanted children fill adoption agencies and
> grow up without ever having enjoyed the family life of which Bush and
> Quayle speak so highly.

  I'm adopted, and so I like that option.  But you are correct in that it is
no panacea.  There are a lot of people waiting to adopt--but not, I think,
enough to soak up all the "supply".

> pro-choicers respond to what I've written here; I want to know both
> sides of the issue so I can make an intelligent choice on it and vote
> accordingly.
>      << Brian >>

  I would only say not to vote based on one issue.  Thus is extremism born,
and that can be dangerous and bloody.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.                       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!               *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************               *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph                        *
********************************************************************************