NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/talk/abortion/46560

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-04 | 11.1 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:46560 alt.rush-limbaugh:8950
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!concert!duke!news.duke.edu!acpub.duke.edu!lanier
From: [e-mail] (Dustin Lanier)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Centrist position on abortion?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Nov 92 21:44:20 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.
Lines: 228
Nntp-Posting-Host: amadeus.acpub.duke.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Linda Birmingham) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dustin Lanier) says:
>
>I think Mr. Lainer has
                     Lanier :)
>made some interesting statements to which others should
>be able to openly debate if they wish.

Sure thing, that's what I want.

  I have included
>a.r.l, in case Mr. Lainer
                          Lanier :)
> wishes to participate in this
>open discussion, however I set the follow-up to talk.abortion.

I've been quite busy, excuse the late reply ... parts have been removed due
to a flawed newsserver which has wierd regulations ...

>>     I hold a centrist position on abortion.  I feel my views, along with the
>> majority of Americans, are not represented by the "pro-groups" that thrive
>>off of their hatred for each other.   I believe there is a vital common ground
>>that is being neglected, which further divides the American people and does
>>nothing to help establish consensus on this volatile issue.  The national din
>>over abortion rights drowns out anything else that might pertain to woman's
>>lives, like equal pay, equal jobs, health care, and violence against women.
>
>I agree.  There are many issues that affect women and children
>that are not being addressed.  However, the same groups that
>wish to legislate against abortion, oppose many of the programmes
>and initiatives listed above.  Abortion is a subset of women's
>equality.  It is unique, however, because only women get pregnant
>and therefore, should the woman's opinion not prevail on the matter?

The common response I here to this point is do you favor _any_ restrictions
on abortion or do you think a woman's opinion is law, so to speak, for the
entire gestation period?  if you do not then you are very extreme in your
beliefs, which is your perogaitve but it marginalizes your opinion.  If you
do then you aknowledge that at some point the child has to be considered to
have at least equal consideration.  I argue below why I place my timeline
when I do, and I'm sure you discuss it below, so onward.

[***]

>>     Polls show that a decisive majority of Americans oppose abortion on
>>demand, want it discouraged and regulated, but do not want a law to outlaw it.
>>Rejecting reasonable restrictions is to ignore mainstream thought and to place
>>ones self on an extreme radical fringe of the most important value issue of
>>our time.  We should not resort to extreme street politics and frank attempts
>>to pack the courts.  The judiciary should not impose social policy.

BTW, I have been asked to subtanciate this and I sight polls done by the Boston
Globe in 1989 and Gallup Polls done during consideration of Casey v. Rep serv
If anyone wants more specific than that write me, I don't have the studies in front
of me.

[***]

>>     We must resolve ourselves to pursuing every avenue that helps bring down
>>the rate of unintended pregnancy and therefore the number of abortions.  We
>>should try to reduce the rate of abortion by helping women avoid the
>>circumstances that lead to abortion.
>
>This will require a system of day care that is affordable
>and accessible.  It will require the provision of adequate and
>safe housing.  It will require the availability of medical care
>both pre and post natal that ensures that both women and children
>are, and remain, healthy.  It will require women the opportunity to
>continue their education or careers so they can provide for their
>children without needing to rely on the kindness of governments.
>
>Is there a willingness to pay the price for such programmes?

I think Clinton will try, we will see.  I think the question is not one of
willingness but ability.  As I said, I'm sure Clinton will try, we'll see
how well he does.

>>     We must work towards creating a broader national perspective.  What is
>>required is an environment in which the laws created would be both natural
>>and obeyed.  In that spirit, I urge you to consider an alternative--both to
>>abortion-on-demand view and abolition of abortion.   This would reflect the
>>views of the majority of americans who cannot identify with the increasingly
>>polarized and radical fringes.
>
>Is the following statement "radical"?
>"Abortion is a decision that should be left to a woman and her doctor"

And I will ask again, do you support placing any restrictions whatsoever on
abortion?  If so, than at some point you have included someone, be it a parent,
a spouse, the unborn child, etc. into the consideration.  Your statement
striked me as a simplistic platitude.

>>  - Webster v Reproductive Health Services holds that the state can have a
>>   "compelling interest in protecting potential human life."  We should not
>>   allow ourselves to be locked into the arbitrary dividers of trimesters.
>>   In order for the state to be consistent, it should apply the same standards
>>   to determining life as it does to determining death.  Death is legally
>>   determined to be a cessation of brain waves and a cessation of heart
>>   activity.  The beginning of these in a fetus is determined to be at around
>>   16 weeks.  This is a much more consistent point than "viability", which
>>   links our morality to scientific progress; a dangerous precedent.
>
>No more than linking morality with brain activity.  Morality
>is personal and individual, particularly when the moral
>judgement affects the individual.

Exactly, mortality is individual, just as if you were a religious cannibal, and
it was perfectly moral for you to eat your nephew, I would not be unjustified in
stepping in for that child.  Government must paint with a broad brush, and I
feel that the stated restrictions are consistent and reasonable.

>
>>   Therefore up to the fourth month abortion would be allowed to any woman
>>   in a state of distress over her pregnancy.
>
>Any woman who is considering abortion as an option is in
>distress about her pregnancy.  Why the double standard
>for pre and post 4 month women?

Because after four months I feel there is another human being involved that
the state has to consider.

[***]

>>  - Abortion should be considered a surgical procedure, subjecting abortion
>>   to the same restrictions, regulations, and licensing standards as other
>>   procedures.
>
>Which is why there is no need for a legislation.

Yet there is no other medical procedure that involves the life of another human
being, which I feel there is at 4 moths.

[consent]
>This would be covered under standard health practice.  One
>does not have heart surgery, for example, without having the
>doctor explain the facts about the surgery and the after
>effects.  Consent forms include a statement that the patient
>has been informed about the procedure and consents.  If this
>procedure is not being used for abortions, and does anyone
>have proof that it is not?, it should be.

The point is that both federal gag rules and attempts to block discussion of
gestation and abortion alternatives is practiced, which is harmful by both
sides.

[***]

>>  - An abortion should not be permitted after four months, except where the
>>   mother is in a life threatening position.
>
>Who determines if a woman's life is in a threatening position?
>What are the criteria that will determine if a woman's life is
>threatend?

I think doctors have a clear understanding of when a woman's life would
be in danger and trying to have nationally mandated criterion would be
bulky and remove the judgement of doctors

[***]


>>     We need to re-examine the adoption alternative, not as a panacea for
>>abortion but as one of the many ways we can create real choices for people.
>>We should remove undue obstacles to adoption where they exist, consistent
>>with prudence.
>
>I truly doubt this would make a difference to women who
>obtain abortions since it ignores why most women have
>abortions in the first place.

The woman most likely to have an abortion is a white female between the ages
of 20-25 with a career and a high school diploma.  The number one reason
given for abortion is an impediment on career or scholastic goals.  I
posit that there are many people who want to adopt and if we can remove
some of the stigma of being pregnant there would be musch less abortion.
If a woman could be pregnant and unmarried with a child in a workplace
without feeling insecure and looked down upon as a tramp or whatever, I
think you would see mucxh more in the way of adoption

>>  Most importantly, we need to create a society where the concern for new
>>life doesn't end at the moment of birth.
>
>We certainly do, but with conservative governments routinely
>cutting social programmes that aid women I think you will
>require some radical changes in political and social thinking.
>
>I assume that most Americans are aware that the US has one of
>the highest infant mortality rates in the industrial world.
>That the rate of child poverty has increased steadily.  That
>it is one of the few nations without some form of guaranteed
>maternity leave and has lagged behind other countries in
>providing health care and day care services.

Yet this comes on the heels of an explosion in expeditures, a flurry of
government programs, and billions in sunk money.  Do you suggest yet more
of this fiscal irresponsibility?

>Considering that Canada found a solution that ended the turmoil
>without legislation and that Brazil, where abortion is illegal,
>reported 4 million abortions and 10,000 dead women due to illegal
>abortions in one year, I don't agree that abortion legislation is
>a solution.

Do you really think that under the regulations that I set out that there
would be 10,000 women dying because there did not have acess to
abortions? Do you really give women so little credit that you think
that in four months they would be incapable of making a decision?
I'm sorry, but I do not think that women are unable to determine
cost and benefit and make a decision, and I think this plan gives
protection to both the mother and the child.


>Linda



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Dustin Lanier                                   Kemp in '96! Kemp in '96!
[e-mail]                           Screw that, Kemp in '92!

"I didn't know we had a King, I thought we were an autonomous collective.
 You're fooling yourself! We're living in a dictatorship! A self perpetuating
 autocracy in which the working classs ... oh there you go bringing class
into it again!"  - Monty Python and me during the Clinton years.

My opinions are the opinions of everyone at Duke University .. yeah that's it!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-