NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/talk/abortion/35040

Text File | 1992-09-04 | 7.6 KB | 182 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!The-Village!waterbed
From: Larry Margolis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 15:15:34 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Nntp-Posting-Host: netslip63.watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Lines: 168

In  <[e-mail]>  [e-mail] () writes:
> [e-mail] (Larry Margolis) 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.
> :
> : Why not?
> :
> : Why is one statement any more valid than the other?
>
> Taken literally, both statements are valid.  It takes a peculiar
> and potent cocktail of drugs to *completely* forget about either
> one of these things :-)

Taken more realistically, they're also equally valid.  Some people may
spend time thinking about what might have been; some people go on with
their lives and never give it a second thought.

> My point was that the two cases are not equivalent - and the
> difference is a simple human difference.
>
> At the very least there is the difference between saying "I will
> not go to Paris again", and turning back at the airport.

If you turned back at the airport, you were presumably *trying* to get
to Paris.  I thought we were talking about a woman who wasn't *trying*
to get pregnant.  (In fact, who was trying *not* to get pregnant.)

> : > Plenty of people are willing to tell you that about abortion,
> :
> : Plenty of people are willing to tell me that about a lot of things
> : which are not immoral in my opinion.  They're entitled to their opinion,
> : and I'm entitled to mine.  I certainly don't feel guilty doing these
> : things because of *their* opinions.
>
> It's not reasonable or right that you or anyone should, but I'm certain
> that a number of women do.

And I'm certain that a great number don't.

> : > In the face of all this, only  an automaton would not have at least
> : > a nagging doubt about having an abortion.
> :
> : Or someone who looked at the facts and made their own decision, with
> : which they're happy.
>
> ....and protect us from people who know they are right, Amen.
>
> Aren't *you* ever wrong?  Do *you* ever wonder about your career
> decisions?

Perhaps you should ask someone less perfect.  :-)

> Why should other people's moral decisions be any different?

Is a career decision a "moral decision"?  And to answer your previous
question, I've never made a *moral* decision which I feel I've been
wrong about.

> : A number of women have reported that they have no regrets about
> : their abortion.  Does this mean that the argument falls, or are
> : you questioning their honesty?
>
> For me, the "abortion is murder" argument falls if one women
> who has experienced it can honestly say their conscience is fine.

Well, many have honestly said this, so I guess the argument falls...

> And no, I'm not questioning any individual's honesty.  However,
> when feelings are deep and constant people can be barely aware of
> them.  That is, it's there so constantly it seems normal. Like
> thinking the world is fuzzy when in fact you need glasses.

..Or are you now claiming that they *must* be feeling something deep
down, even though they've honestly said that they don't?  That, "Oh,
I'm sure you believe what you're saying, but I know what;s inside
your head better than 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.
> :
> : Nobody chooses heart surgery lightly, either.  Do you believe that
> : they must therefore be suffering nagging doubt the rest of their life?
> : What if they had someone telling them that surgery was immoral and
> : that they should have let themself die if that was god's will?
>
> I don't think *many* (any?) people are saying that women should let
> themselves die rather than have an abortion, as seems to be implied
> above.  I'd say that was an extreme view, with little bearing on the
> point in question.   I'd say that you don't hold that view, and
> nor do I.  So why have you brought it up?

The parallel with heart surgery was drawn to show that not choosing it
lightly does not imply that it's something that you have moral qualms
about later.  In case you wanted to say that there's a difference
because nobody thinks that surgery is immoral, I was pointing out that
(I believe) Christian Scientists hold that view.  While I respect
their right to their own religious viewpoint, I'm not going to let
it affect *my* decisions as to whether or not surgery, blood transfusions,
etc. are right for me, and I'm certainly not going to feel guilty
afterwards because *their* morality doesn't agree with mine.
(Apologies if I've misrepresented the beliefs of Christian Scientists.)

> Oh, I see, you really are never wrong.

You're quite perceptive.  :-)

> : > 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.
> :
> : Posted yesterday.
>
> Haven't seen these yet - thank you very much, whoever posted them.

You're welcome (for what I posted); if you don't see it, ask and I'll
email a copy.

> : > it's just that as I personally
> : > believe there are barely words to describe this,
> :
> : That's because you personally believe that it's immoral.
>
> Do I?  Oh.

I realize that that's an assumption on my part; it's based on the
fact that you seem to believe it's such a big deal.  For those
who don't think it's immoral, it's not such a big deal; certainly
nothing that would haunt them the rest of their life.

> : > By the way, the original poster did not justify her "over and
> : > done with" claim with any perceptible knowledge base or learned
> : > studies.  Yet you did not deem it necessary to point that out.
> :
> : Her claim was that it's *never* over and done with, and that can be
> : shown wrong with a single counter-example.  A number of women have
> : posted counter-examples.
>
> Well, hang on a cotton pickin' minute.  I'm following up someone
> named "e bartley", who said something like "an abortion is over and
> done with, whereas adoption...".

Sorry, I was thinking that the post to which I was responding was from
Suzanne (hence the "her").  In fact, it was your claim:
In article <[e-mail]> you wrote:
#I don't accept that as abortion is ever over and done with
#as you suggest.

Change "her claim" to "your claim"; the counter-examples are still valid.

> But yes, I'm also saying that it's never over and done with.
> Holding oneself up as a counter example shows nothing, as if you're
> still talking about it, it ain't over.  And I don't see how you
> could hold anyone *else* up as an example (as if you're still being
> harassed by researchers, you really have a problem:-).

If you haven't thought about it in 20 years, and then only mention it
to show that someone claiming it's never over and done with is wrong,
I'd consider that a valid counter-example.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), [e-mail] (Internet)