NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/talk/abortion/33396

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-25 | 3.9 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33396 alt.abortion.inequity:3262
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!csn!cherokee!eatdust!stevens
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (John Stevens)
Nntp-Posting-Host: eatdust.it.uswc.uswest.com
Organization: Huhhh?  Whats that?
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:35:29 GMT
Lines: 75

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lori K. Rothman) writes:
>>  If you are not willing to accept responsibility for the possible failure
>>  of contraception, then yes, you should consider celibacy.  From your reply
>>  I assume that you plan on having children some time.  Is it right then, to
>>  abort an unplanned pregnancy because it is convenient?
>
>If our several forms of birth control failed, and I became pregnant, my
>husband would have to quit school and work full-time.  I would have to work
>full-time until the last possible minute.  We would have to move into a
>smaller apartment, and one which is considerably cheaper (we only $275 now).
>This would mean the place we found would probably be in a fairly high crime
>area, with roaches and rats.

[ And much more description of how her and her husbands and their child's
  standard of living would be lower.
]

A few points to ponder:

1)    The parents of one of my friends were unemployed for quite some time,
    (five years) trying very hard to live on welfare with two young children
    while while searching for work.  Any work.  And the father was trying
    to finish a Masters degree.

    The scenario you describe did NOT happen to them.  Why?  Because while
    it is a possibility, it is not pre-ordained that the very worst MUST
    occur.

    It was a real struggle, but the father eventually finished his Masters
    degree, got a job with IBM, and was able to afford (through an
    incredible amount of self-discipline, scrimping and saving) to
    put his eldest son through a very expensive college.  The middle son
    also went to college with his father's assistance, and the youngest
    could have gone, but chose a different path in life.

    These three children are some of the finest human beings I know, and
    it is primarily because their parents are such wonderful people.

    In other words, having little money is not automatically a sentence
    of death.

2)    Is what you have described so bad that to avoid it, a human being
    should be killed?  Are you so sure that this scenario COULD NOT
    produce a fine child?

3)    If this standard of living is so unnacceptable that a human being
    should be killed to avoid it, does this then give us the right to
    kill off every body in the world who does not have a chance at this
    standard of living, and the chance to get a higher education?

    Remember, we are talking about YOU making the decision for someone
    else.

In the end, people have overcome much more difficult circumstances than
the ones you are currently in, and with children to take care of to boot.

Until the begining of this year, my average yearly salary was only
slightly higher that what I was making as a fry cook in high school.
Adjusting for inflation, I was making less money with a college degree.
I still managed to put my wife through three more years of college
(Bachelor's degree), pay the bills and just recently, have a child.
There have been times when our debt was pretty deep, but we managed to
pull it out through hard work and luck.

I have other examples of people who have children, and a low (or very low)
level of income and who have been succesful anyway.  A low rent
neighborhood need not be a high crime neighboorhood.

>Lori Kent Rothman
>[e-mail]
>
>I speak only for myself (and sometime my cats.)

John
[e-mail]