NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/talk/abortion/34352

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-01 | 7.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!caen!sdd.hp.com!nobody
From: [e-mail] (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Date: 1 Sep 1992 12:55:57 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Lines: 154
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] () writes:
>[e-mail] (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>: In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>: >I'm saying that the knowledge of the child *you* might have
>: >raised, or might have had adopted, for that matter,  is with
>: >you for the rest of your life.
>: So is the knowledge of the children you might have raised that you
>: decided never to conceive.
>Not really, Adrienne.
>By actually conceiving, I would imagine that you are suddenly
>in a world of shit, which is not generally the case when
>deciding not to conceive.

Oh, I don't think so.  Having actually conceived, purposefully on two different-
occasions, I didn't have to imagine my response, I could actually respond.
Having acted as parent to two children over the years, I've thought any
number of times about other children I *might* have had, but couldn't afford
to.  And those speculative children are no more or less real than the aborted
fetus, a 'potential' child, that I didn't carry to term.

Now, 'I would imagine' that some people feel differently, sure.  But I would
also imagine that MOST women are quite satisfied with their abortions, because
they don't seem to be having a problem with it.  We've had 20 years of abor-
tion in these United States, and some very small fraction of these women are
undeniablly dissatisfied.  However, that information doesn't change the fact
that some very large fraction of these women are aOK.

>You are placed in the position of *having* to make the
>decision, PDQ.  You have a new option, which is having the
>child, then opting for adoption (which we are supposed
>to be discussing).   That option isn't relevant when you
>simply decide never to have kids.

What, you figure most people really don't think about these things, ever,
they just humm along fucking like bunnies with zip, nada, no thought what-
soever to the possible outcomes?  What frame of reference are you using?

>only  an automaton would not have at least a nagging
>doubt about having an abortion.

I do not have any nagging doubt.  And I am not an automaton.  This crap
is merely your prejudice and reflects (rather badly) upon you.

>: >In fact, all I'm saying is: abortion, for women who choose it,
>: >is a Big Deal.
>: Upon what grounds do you make this claim?
>No studies. No reports. No evidence.  I can't uuencode
>a woman's conscience and upload it for you.  The whole
>thing stands or falls on what any honest woman tells
>you about an abortion she has had.

Interesting.  Thanks, but I don't need 'a woman's conscience' uploaded for
me, since I've obtained one all by myself over the years.  And I'm telling
you your perception of 'most women' is wrong.  Now what do you do?

>But any woman I have spoken to says the same thing: "no woman
>chooses abortion lightly".  I believe that.  I also believe
>that something that significant alters ones life.

I don't thikn women undertake it lightly, any more than they undertake
any invasive surgery lightly (although it is true that my conization oper-
ation concerned me more  WRT my responsibilities as a mother than my abortion
did).  But I hardly consider it to be life altering, either.

>I also wonder, what if it (abortion) *is* wrong?   You
>know, suppose the z/e/f turned out to be a person all
>along.   Suppose (whisper it) YOU GOT IT WRONG!  AGAIN!
>Suppose that someone up there was mighty pissed off about
>all this pro-choicing.  Where would that leave us?

Oh come on.  "Suppose".  Suppose that someone up there was mighty
pissed off that you stuck your nose into other people's business.  Where
would *that* leave you!

>If you believe in a conscience, and I believe your personal
>experience will demonstrate this, then if abortion is indeed
>(morally) wrong, then women who choose it will know it - though
>the consequences of that are so appalling that they may drive
>it so deep that it is almost unknown to them.

Or -- maybe -- if abortion is NOT wrong, they'll know it -- and know it
right up front.  And say so.  And tell you.

WHAT a concept!

>It's not a weight I'd like to carry.

You do not need to.  Don't have an abortion, and you do not carry the 'weight'.

>However, I would say that is very hard to distinguish
>between a woman who feels genuine guilt and woman who
>is a victim of the "guilt industry" that surrounds this
>whole topic.  Only the woman herself can make that distinction.

Absolutely.  I'm curious, though.  Why do you figure that anybody but
the woman involved has to distinguish between these guilts?  Especially if
there is no guilt to be bothered with?

>I'm not really sure we're talking about the same issues, Adrienne.
>But you're quite correct.  I am completely ignorant of any and
>all studies concerning abortion, and would welcome a reference
>to some of them.

Larry posted an article referencing one study I recalled.  I have the
results of another study that I'll post here:

Scientific American, April 1990:

"Scientific studies on psychological responses to legal, nonrestrictive
abortion in the United States suggest that severe negative reactions are
infrequent in the immediate and short-term aftermath, particularly for
first-trimester abortions.  Women who are terminating pregnancies that
are wanted, or personally meaningfull, who lack support from their part-
ner or parents for the abortion, or who have more conflicting feelings
or are less sure of their decision beforehand may be at relatively higher
risk for negative consequences.
"Case studies have established that some women experience severe distress
or spychopathology after abortion and require sympathetic care.  As former
Surgeon General C. Everett Koop testified before Congress regarding
his review of research on spychological effects of abortion, such
responses can be overwhelming to a given individual, BUT the development
of significant psychological problems related to abortion is "miniscule
from a public health perspective".  (emphasis mine.)          ^^^^^^^^^
" Despite methodological shortcomings of any single study, in the aggregate
research with diverse samples, different measures of response and different
times of assessment have come to similar conclusions.  The time of greatest
distress is likely to be before the abortion.  Severe negative reactions
after abortions are rare..."  and here I've lost the next page with the
remainder of the text.

I posted the results of another article from a researcher named Dagg about
reproductive choice that showed women who had been denied abortion had very
negative responses to the denial of their own choice.  However, I don't have
that copy in full any longer either.  I'll go looking.

>Furthermore, I guess you think that studies are always unbiased.  On
>this topic, I wonder.  Did you do science at school?

Wait a minute.  Are you a Suzanne clone?  "do science"?
Somebody check the attributions!!!  Another pseudonym plot!!!!

You'd guess wrong; I've read 'How to Lie with Statistics" from cover to
cover, twice.  I don't think studies are always unbiased, but I *do*
think uneducated personal opinion can't help but be completely biased.
Get thee to a library.

>Only the knowledge base of a single individual, I'm afraid.

You now know two.  I've had an abortion, after having two quite healthy
children, and enjoying the heck out of them.  And I think it was the
correct decision, and feel just fine about it, thanks.

Adrienne Regard