Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I haven't heard of this either. There was a startling show on
    Oprah Winfrey the other day; with the people who represent
    "Pro-Life". They are  totally against abortions for *any* reason.
    When asked if they considered rape a reason for abortion, they
    say "NO". Their main argument is that every un-born fetus has
    a right to life.
    
    
    Chris
    

    There is I think a case heading for the Supreme Court regarding
    abortion. Do to some new members there is some concern that
    Roe vs Wade might be ignored as a precedent and that abortion
    might become against the law.
    
    It's interesting that few of the people who feel that since Roe
    vs Wade was decided that the SC should never overturn it feel
    the same way about the Dread Scott decision.
    
    The issue of abortion has come up here time and again. My own
    opinion has moderated somewhat because of that. Not enough that
    I would be upset if Roe vs Wade was overturned though.
    
    			Alfred

From the Boston Globe (Sep 15, 1988)

"Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun siad there was a distinct possibility
his 1973 landmark decision leagalizing abortion could be overturned this
year. [in a speech given to students at] Little Rock School of Law.
"You can count the votes."  Although he implied the future of the opinion
depended on the court's newest member, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Blackmun
did not elaborate.  "One never knows what a new justice's attitude toward
stare decisis is," Blackmun said.  Stare decsis is the judicial doctrine
that favors continuning existing law as found in legal precedents.

Martin.

    Don't the anti-abortionists understand that, whether it is legal
    or not, there will be some people who are SO desperate and in such
    DIRE states (mentally, emotionally, physically, relationshipally,
    etc) that they will seek abortion whether it is legal or not?  Don't
    they realize that abortion can be performed for those who want it
    in a controlled, safe, supportive environment - after complete
    discussion of other alternatives and counseling on birth control
    - at this point in time, and if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, and
    abortion is illegal in the US, then those who wish abortions and
    have the money will go to foreign countries and those who don't
    have the money will go to back-alley butchers....
    
    And of course, nobody can know how they REALLY feel about the
    alternative of abortion unless they or someone extremely close to
    them must face the decision.  They can formulate and espouse an
    opinion - but never is it tested until they meet it face to face.
    
    -Jody
    
    
    

    Because Reagan was successful in getting several conservatives
    appointed to the Supreme Court, the analysis is that there will
    be hell to pay in the years to come with regard to judicial
    decisions.  Roe vs. Wade is definitely going to be re-hashed, along
    with school prayer, drug-testing, and a number of civil rights
    issues, including affirmative action.
    
    Sad isn't it.  And, it all happened right before our eyes.

    And I also find it disturbing that those deciding the fate of women
    either having access to safe abortions or being forced to the back
    alley butcher are men, with the exception of Sandra.
    
    Seems like it's time to resurrect the old saying....
    
    If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
    

   Re: .6


>>    - at this point in time, and if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, and
>>    abortion is illegal in the US, then those who wish abortions and
>>    have the money will go to foreign countries and those who don't
>>    have the money will go to back-alley butchers....

    
Classic vision of Reagan, Bush, and the right-wing conservative party. Let's    
go back to the good ole' days.

SET MODE/SARCASTIC:

If Bush wins, and if he succeeds in nominating more of his people to the Supreme
Court, perhaps they will be able to reconsider some of the other radical ideas
that were implemented by those radical liberals, ideas such as allowing women to
vote, among others.

Now, let's show our patriotism by reciting the pledge of alliance, does anything
matters more.....?????


QUESTION:

Why would women vote for Bush.....??    

    I saw the item quoting Blackmun in yesterday's Nashua Telegraph,
    alongside an article detailing how the Senate had voted against
    a resolution extending Medicare payments to abortions for pregnancies
    due to incest or rape, leaving "danger to the mother's life" as
    the only option.  The analysis said that there was wide support,
    but not wide enough to overturn a certain Reagan veto, and that
    the anti-abortion lobby was very strong.
    
    				Steve

    
    Would people here feel more comfortable if this was
    an issue the people could decide via the vote?

re .11

	No. If a vote were held on slavery in the 1700's it would have
	been approved. If a vote was held on the "final solution" in
	1940's Germany, it would have been approved. Because the people 
	approve something by a majority vote does not make that thing right.
	Two people beating up one is democracy in miniature.

						Tom_K

Re:  .12

>   No... Because the people approve something by a majority vote does not
>   make that thing right.  Two people beating up one is democracy in
>   miniature.

Well said, Tom_K.  And this is typical of constitutional issues.  Ultimately
they will have to be decided by either the judiciary or by an overwhelming
majority of the population (in the form of a constitutional amendment).
Abortion is not a matter for a simple 50%+ referendum.

In this particular instance I think that a majority of the population would
vote to allow a woman to choose abortion on demand.  But I don't think we
should have to vote.  I hope that the Supreme Court will hold firm on Roe v.
Wade.

				--Q (Dick Wagman), crossing his fingers

    At the risk of sounding incredibly stupid...could someone
    please explain what Roe vs Wade involved?
    
    Thanks.
    
    Deb
    
    

    Re: .14
    
    Roe vs. Wade was a 1973 decision in which the Supreme Court overturned
    restrictive anti-abortion laws in Texas, and also declared
    unconstitutional any other state law that attempted to restrict
    the legality of abortions in the first trimester.
    
    			Steve

    The cornerstone for Roe v. Wade was the 14th amendment, which the
    majority interpreted to restrict state actions on personal liberties.
    Specifically, the fundamental personal rights specified in this decision
    include marriage, reproduction, contraception etc. etc. The right to
    abortion is included in this list, although not without significant
    qualifications.
    
    Its my opinion that Roe v. Wade is a FLAWED decision due to these
    qualifications.  They specify that the state does have a role in
    protecting POTENTIAL LIFE.  In their ruling, potential life was
    described as when the fetus can live outside of the womb.  Based
    on medical technology in 1972/73, they came up with the concept of
    allowing increased state regulation of abortion in the 2nd and 3rd
    trimesters of pregnancy.
    
    Now, even if Roe v. Wade isn't explicitly overruled (note: now Chief
    Justice Rehnquist was one of the two dissentors) because of the "novel"
    interpretation of the Due Process clause in the 14th amendment, it's
    my opinion that Roe v. Wade could become obsolete in the next decade.
    Simply because it will be possible to keep a fetus minimally alive outside
    of the womb no matter how young it is.  Thus, the state will be able to
    prohibit abortions completely, except in the case of preserving the
    mother's health or life.
    
    If we had a different Court in place, I'd welcome a re-evaluation
    of Roe. v. Wade to remove the clauses specifying "fetal viability",
    but leave in place the trimester-based approach of increasing State
    control.  Unfortunately, if this does come before the court in the
    next few years, what will probably happen is that the Court will
    see the liberal interpretation of the 14th amendment as flawed and
    decide that it does not include protection for abortion whatsoevver.
    Thus overturning Roe v. Wade.  Which would be a catastrophic mistake,
    in my opinion, for the reasons described so well in previous responses.

    Well this seems to become a world wide problem. In a town in south
    Gemany, several hundred women just have been punished pretty hard
    for illegal abortions; the (male) doctor doing them had helped the
    women without all those bureaucratic nonsense the law asks for -
    mostly just because there was no time to go to all the authorities,
    partly because the south german authorities tend to keep the "process
    of advice" until it's too late for a legal abortion, anyway (in
    other parts of Germany, it's much easier to get a legal abortion;
    and the authorities mostly don't persecute illegal abortions).
    
    The press is making a big thing of it and writing "witch hunt" -
    which is great, but it creates a new problem: the judge, a real
    hard liner, can hardly leave the doctor (whose trial is just going
    on) unpunished now because that doctor (blessed be his name!) happens
    to be a man....
    
    I agree that a referendum could even make the situation worse; and
    there isn't much chance for a referendum to be done only by women...
    
    Lion Feuchtwanger writes in "Success": it is no contradiction that
    those who value human life the least are most eager to protect unborn
    life: it has to be UNEXPENSIVE, so there must be plenty of it. Only
    thus, the armies get enough "human material" to be killed in the
    battlegrounds; only thus, the industry gets enough workers to be
    killed slowly by unhealthy work in unhealthy factories.
    
    And I bet there's another idea: put women "back in their place".
    
    My question for the next elections: is there any party/candidate
    in the USA that a woman might vote for under these aspects? Watching
    the election campaigns in the States, I get the impression that
    American women don't even have an alternative.
    
    regards
    pony
    

    Re: .17
    
    I believe Michael Dukakis is pro-choice.
    
    				Steve

    The rationale that the Supreme Court used (if I'm remembering
    correctly) was that of the Right to Privacy.  Any individual
    has a right to privacy, which forms an `umbrella' over the person's
    actions.  The Court held that the interactions between a woman
    and her doctor fell under the shadow of that umbrella.  (Yes,
    they really used those terms.)
    
    The loophole that was left, and that is currently being worried
    about (I think this is the loophole, anyhow.) is this.  The Court
    acknowledged that the State *might* have an "overriding interest"
    in the matter.  (I say "matter" because I no longer remember well
    enough to be more precise.)  The Court then set the guideline of
    saying that in the third trimester, when the fetus could well be
    viable, the State probably did have such an interest, that in the
    second trimester, when the fetus just might be viable, it would
    be arguable one way or the other, and the State could decide (I'm
    uncertain here.), and that in the first trimester, the State had
    no business.
    
    							Ann B.

    re: .18
    
    Dukakis was in favor of gay rights, too, until it became apparent
    that it was going to hurt him politically and he decided that
    gays and lesbians weren't qualified to be foster parents. 
    
    --bonnie

	Bob Woodward's book on the Supreme Court, "The Brethren", gives
	a pretty good treatment of Roe vs Wade case, and how the Court
	came to decide it in the manner it did, Woodward's hate of anyone to 
	the right of Thurgood Marshall notwithstanding.

					Tom_K

    To 183.18
    
    Issues of this kind always wind up in the United States Supreme
    Court, as they are appealed and re-appealed in the lower (State)
    courts.  The Supreme Court justices are political appointees.  The
    current Court is heavily endowed with conservative justices.  The
    putting-in-place of these conservative justices was a burning mandate
    for the Reagan administration.  With that now accomplished, we will
    be suffering the ramifications of these appointments to the Court.
    
    Some of the appointees remain on the bench for years and years --
    retiring at an old age (or dying!).  The future doesn't look too
    bright for women, minorities, etc.

    Sorry about that -- reply is to .17.

    Thanks for the input; I was afraid I'd heard correctly. Now instead
    of one "life" they will be able to claim two--the fetus and the
    mother.  Does anyone have any great ideas how "we the people" can
    prevent this taking place?  Where's the PRO-CHOICE lobby?  Where
    does one go to help (especially in Utah!!!)?  
    
    Barb

    Re: .24
    
    I believe that the largest organized pro-choice group is the National
    Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).  I contributed to them in
    the past, but have not heard much about them lately.  Does anyone
    have an update?
    
    					Steve

    Re: .25
    
    Marge, I think you put a bit too much faith in constitutional
    amendments.  They CAN (and have) been repealed.  But I do agree
    that an amendment would be harder to overturn than a Supreme
    Court decision, which is what I think you were getting at anyway.
    
    However, given the difficulty of getting something obvious like
    the ERA passed, I don't see much chance of an amendment on abortion
    (ESPECIALLY one that preserves the right of choice!)
    
    				Steve

    re "Reagan's agenda":
    
    While I am no fan of Reagan, or of his appointees to the Supreme
    Court, I would like to point out that all presidential appointments
    are subject to "the advice and consent of the Senate", as was so
    graphically demonstrated by the Bork appointment. Reagan is not
    solely responsible for the composition of the court.
    
    re .25:
    
    > The only thing airtight would be a constitutional amendment.        
      
    While it would be the "tightest", constitutional amendments can
    be overturned as well; witness the 13th (prohibition).
                           
    
                                   
    "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance"
    
    			- [I seem to have forgotten]
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

Re: .25

    Legislation would  almost certainly suffice to retain the right to
    abortion.  The only way such legislation would be overturned is if
    the court ruled that a fetus was a person, and as such entitled to
    due process.

    I think  that  an  amendment allowing abortion is as unwise as one
    prohibiting  it.  This  is the sort of issue that should not be in
    the  constitution  which  is a framework for government, and not a
    collection of by-laws.

    The decision  in  Roe  v.  Wade is difficult to justify (much as I
    like the result). In Griswold v. Connecticut (in 1963!!) the court
    ruled  that  a  state could not prohibit the sale of contraception
    because that would violate the right to privacy in the sanctity of
    the  marital  bedroom.  Justice  Douglas wrote that opinion. While
    this  is stretching the constitution a bit, it makes sense that if
    there  is  any  right  to  privacy, it must at least extend to the
    marital  bedroom.  To  then  stretch  that and say that there is a
    right  to  abortion  requires  some  real  effort,  and I find the
    opinion less than convincing.

    Since there  is  a majority (according to all the poles I've seen)
    in  favor of abortion, this should really be fought as a political
    rather  than  a legal issue. The Supreme court may change, and the
    argument  was  week to begin with. Incidentally, the Supreme court
    has  been  reactionary  for  most  of  its  history. That's why an
    amendment  was  needed  to  start an income tax, and why Roosevelt
    worked  so  hard on a court packing plan. It has only been leading
    rather  than  following  public  opinion since the 50's and school
    desegregation.

    I rather  expect  it to go back to being conservative, and in some
    ways believe that it should be.  

--David

    RE: .6 Yes, anti-abortionists know that even if abortion is illegal
    there will still be abortions. Unless you are telling them that
    making abortion illegal will mean *more* abortions you can't expect
    them to support legalization though. That would be like saying
    that because people will/do discriminate against blacks that we
    might as well make discrimination legal. Silly isn't it? 
    
    RE: Constitution Amendments. Judging by how badly butchered the
    second amendment is getting these days I would not put too much
    faith in that for either side.
    
    		Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    You make a good point, one that I hadn't thought of before. I think
    what frustrates those who want abortions to remain legal is that
    sometimes it seems that we're trading off the value of the fetus' life
    and the value of the mother's life. Yes, the same number of abortions
    may be performed, but traditionally, illegal abortions have been less
    sterile and less safe then legal ones. This puts a burden on our health
    system (repairing the damage done, when that's even possible) and on
    our financial system. 
    
    Liz 

Re:  .26

NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League) is alive, well, and running
scared like most sensible pro-choice organizations.  They have provided legal
counsel and support on behalf of a number of women who have been hindered from
getting abortions, and they have also contributed money (through NARAL-PAC,
their political arm) to candidates who support a woman's right to choose.
I continue to give them some money every year.  I will try to get their
address and post it here for those of you who might wish to support them.

Re:  .28

>                            -< constitutional nits >-

>   While it would be the "tightest", constitutional amendments can
>   be overturned as well; witness the 13th (prohibition).

Yet another constitutional nit:  prohibition was the 18th amendment, not
the 13th.

Your basic point, however, is correct.

I'm inclined to think that matters of behavior as specific as abortion
(either pro or con) have no place in a constitution.  I think it makes better
sense to have the constitution be very general, and allow the courts to
interpret it as the times demand.  However, if we can pass the ERA (which
I believe *is* adequately general), I think it will become very difficult for
future courts to rule that a woman must surrender her choice of what to do
with her own body when no similar demand is ever made upon a man.


						--Q

Re: .32

>  However, if we can pass the ERA (which
>I believe *is* adequately general), I think it will become very difficult for
>future courts to rule that a woman must surrender her choice of what to do
>with her own body when no similar demand is ever made upon a man.
>

    I agree   with  you  about  keeping  specific  rules  out  of  the
    constitution,  and that the ERA is sufficently general to be added
    to  the constitution. However, your last sentence only makes sense
    from  a pro-choice point of view. From an anti-abortion viewpoint,
    a  law  against  abortion  doesn't  control  the woman's body, but
    protects  the  fetus's life. The fact that only women are affected
    by  that will probably be irrelevant under an ERA, in the same way
    that  a  rule  regulating  sperm donors (say a maximum age, as Leo
    Szilard  suggests  in  a short story) would probably be legal even
    though it only affects men.

    Even under  an  ERA  we can expect to generalize the rule allowing
    hiring  discrimination  in  the  case  of  "Bona Fide occupational
    qualifications".  (The  classic  examples are sperm donors and wet
    nurses.  However  the Supreme court ruled that requiring ushers to
    be white because they're easier to see in the dark was not legal.)

--David

    re: .33
    
    Not having access to safe abortions does in fact, as a by-product,
    create a situation where women don't have control over what happens
    to their bodies, like being forced to carry a fetus to full-term
    and go through labor and delivery.  The anit-abortion, or pro-life
    folks are real big on the ideas of why abortion in so 'bad' yet
    we live in a society that 'aborts' certain groups of people once
    they enter this world.  The pro-lifers don't seem to want to face
    the realities of poverty and illiteracy and inadequate medical care
    for all these fetuses-now-babies that they so gallantly want to
    'protect' by  prohibiting abortions.  It just seems like one big
    cop out for them to then retreat into their fundamentalism and justify
    poverty and oppression by saying 'it's god's will and god said that
    the poor will always be with us....'
    
    

    Anyone who would care to read a discussion on abortion where
    most of the writers are both antiabortion and male should add
    rahab::soapbox to their notebook and read note 49.
    
    Bonnie

    Please check of one or more of the following:
    
    [] No abortions under any conditions
    
    [] Only for rape or incest
    
    [] Only in mothers life in danger
    
    [] Only in first 3 months
    
    [] Only in first 6 months
    
    [] Only until it is born
    
    [] Only if it is female
    
    [] Only if it is defective

    
    
    The difference  between pro-choise and pro-life is in what is being
    destroyed, a fetus, or a human.

As I promised in .32, here is the address of NARAL:

	National Abortion Rights Action League
	1101 14th St. NW, Suite 500
	Washington, DC 20005

Their phone number is (202) 371-0779.

						--Q

    Please check of one or more of the following:
    
    [] No abortions under any conditions
       *I do not think that anything should have a Never/Ever condition*  
    [] Only for rape or incest
       *Should be done if requested by the victim or parent of the 
        victim if incestious*
    [] Only in mothers life in danger
       *No question if parents both concur, or if this is what the
        Woman prefers, 'In the cases that I have seen the mother will
        usually  prefer the child be born if not defective and has a 
        reasonable chance of normal birth.'*
    [] Only in first 3 months
       *this is what I would use for normal situations*
    [] Only in first 6 months
       *if deformed I believe that this is okay*
    [] Only until it is born
       *After being born can abortions be done?*
    [] Only if it is female
       * Only if we also use the only male option *
    [] Only if it is defective
       *Circumstances determine what is to be done.
    
    
    The difference  between pro-choise and pro-life is in what is being
    destroyed, a fetus, or a human.
    
    *And I believe that life begins at the moment of conception,
     but I am not the person involved, and who am I to Judge what
     is right for another person.  If I made the choises for other
     people, we would all drive the same kind of car that I drive,
     work where I work, Enjoy watching Michigan State/ University 
     of Michigan Football, the Rose Bowl, Detroit Tigers, Lake
     Superior State University Hockey, and the Annual Army/Navy
     Game.  I am glad that I do not have to choose for everyone,
     and everyone I am sure is also GLAD!*

Dave

    re. 20: 
    
    Dukakis is a longtime, consistent supporter of a woman's right to
    choose.  He's never said otherwise, even when confronted with
    anti-choice hecklers.  I think we can reasonably believe he will
    continue to support it as president.   
    
    (As an aside, Dukakis's views on gay rights haven't changed: he has
    consistently been a luke-warm supporter of gay rights and he
    continues to be so.  He didn't say gay couples couldn't be foster
    parents, but that they would be considered only after heterosexual
    couples.  I don't agree with him on that but it is consistent with
    his less than whole-hearted support of gay rights.  However, given
    that the Republican party has become the home of fundamental
    Christians, the Moral Majority, plus  the Jerry and Pat Show, I
    don't think one could expect any support for gay rights from the
    Republicans.)
     

    I've moved the tangent about "Rights for specific groups" to note #200.
    Please continue the discussion about "abortion concerns" here.
    
    Thanks
    Liz Augustine
    womannotes comoderator
    

>Categories 2, 3, and 4 make up the bulk of those who are currently 
>seeking abortions.  These are individuals who have chosen to have sex.
>They know the potential for becoming pregnant; they are not ignorant of
>that fact.  In many instances they have placed their trust in birth
>control methods which are known to be only partially effective.  Some of
       (a few sentences deleted)
>their minds, often for good reason. The fact remains that they started
>the ball on its downhill course with knowledge of the risk which 
>accompanied it. They, with their partners, are responsible for the
>consequences of their conscious act. I do not favor abortion as an
>option for these individuals.  I do favor enlarging the educational

Marge,
  What you have said here really disturbs me. Here's why:

  I have almost no desire to have children. It's possible that
  this could change in the future, but for now, that's how I feel.
  Beyond that, I  dislike babies/infants, and, although I enjoy
  contact with children from toddlers on up, I don't enjoy it enough
  to want to have children. I believe that if I were a parent,
  my child would suffer through my hostility to her or him, so
  it is not in a child's best interest to have me as a parent
  (at least right now). That is why I would want the option
  of having an abortion should I become pregnant.

  You might say, well, put the child up for adoption. For me,
  that is not an option, either. Unless I were to drop off the 
  face of the earth for 9 months, everyone, my co-workers, family
  and friends would certainly observe my condition. After
  I gave birth, I'd have to deal with all the questions about
  where the baby was. No problem. But--the vast majority of people
  seem to feel that any woman who does not naturally love 
  babies is "sick", especially if she is married (as I am)
  and able to support a baby if she so chose. I have seen the
  way people considered "mentally ill" are treated in this
  society. If their illness wasn't enough to ruin their lives,
  the stigma, the hostility from our society is enough to
  ruin their lives. And I don't want to pay this kind of penalty (for
  engaging in sexual intercourse) for the rest of my life.
  
>accompanied it. They, with their partners, are responsible for the
>consequences of their conscious act. I do not favor abortion as an
>option for these individuals.  I do favor enlarging the educational

  I use a birth control pill that the manufacturer claims results
  in .5 pregnancies per year per 100 women using this pill. You
  seem to be saying that because I do not want children, and
  yet there is some (however small) chance of my birth control
  failing, my husband and I should abstain from sex for our
  whole lives (remember, even surgical sterilization is not 100% 
  effective)? Thanks, but I don't want the government telling
  me this, which seems to be what you desire to happen.
    

    Marge,
    
    First I'll respond to your scenarios, then expound a little on
    my views:
    
    1. yes
    
    2. yes
    
    3. no
    
    4. depends on circumstances
    
    5a. well, yes - as an "enlightenment" as you suggested
    
    5b. good point...probably yes, as you suggested
    
    
    I happen to fall into catagory 2. I have been taking bc since
    I've started having sex. I have used both the pill and diaphram.
    I had to discontinue the pill because I am nearing age 35 and
    I smoke (2pks aday). I am at risk on the pill. Then I used the 
    diaphram. REAL convenient (note sarcasm here). Plus I *load*
    on the jelly (just to be doubly, extra sure). So I feel I've done
    my share in preventing pregancy. However, the risks are still
    there. My husband (what a guy!) has had a vasectomy recently.
    So we should be pretty safe now. WE DO NOT WANT CHILDREN!
    Even the vasectomy has a risk factor (something like 99.95%?)
    effective. If by chance I should get pregnant, I feel that
    abortion would be needed. I will not go thru labor and birthing
    to give up a child, I would abort as soon as I found out.
    
    Having sex is a "risk", but I will not give up sex simply
    because the risk of pregnancy is there. Your reply seemed
    to imply that celibacy is the only alternative. Am I correct
    in interpreting here?
    
    I hope I don't offend anyone here, just stating my views.
    Feel free to comment on my comments.
    
    pat
    

    Marge,
    
    Could you explain what you mean by "be prepared to accept
    the responsibility that goes with it."?  Do you mean that
    if you have sex and take precautions, but still get pregnant
    anyway, that you MUST have (give birth to) a baby?
    

    I am definitely not pro-abortion but I am pro-choice.  Abortions
    are not a good thing but making them illegal will not stop them.
    
    		Dave

    
    
    Marge, I don't think I understand the logic behind your stand.
    If abortion is wrong in some circumstances, why is it not wrong
    under all circumstances?  What are your objections to abortion?
    If you consider abortion the 'taking of a life', then wouldn't
    it be wrong to take that life regardless of the circumstances of
    conception?
    
    How do we track women who were allotted their one abortion, due
    to ignorance?  A system of tattoos, perhaps?
    
    Because NO method of birth control is 100% failproof, with the
    exception of abstinance or tubal ligation, should all women of
    childbearing age, who wish not to have a child at that moment,
    be compelled to abstain from sexual relations?  
    
    Although your note made it clear that you are not "pro-abortion",
    it's a little fuzzy about what you are:  pro-choice?  sounds like
    you are willing to let the individual choose, if they meet your
    criteria.....so much for choice.   Or anti-abortion?  But not if
    you feel it's ok under certain circumstances....
    
    I guess I'm confused.
    
    Deborah
    
    

    	RE:   .45
    
    	Marge, don't you see that they are completely PREPARED to accept
    	responsibility for their actions by making their OWN decisions
    	about what is right for them (and taking the appropriate measures
    	to be sure that the desired result is achieved)??
    
    	If you take away their choices, you are not forcing them to
    	become responsible.  In effect, you are taking the responsibility
    	AWAY from them, and are forcing them to ENDURE THE CONSEQUENCES
    	THAT *YOU* FEEL ARE JUST FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
    
    	How can you want to sit in judgment of people in that manner?
    	Would you want others to make *YOUR* decisions for you (and
    	to sentence you to a PENALTY in the name of accepting *their*
    	definition of what constitutes 'responsibility' even if it
    	is diametrically opposed to what YOU consider 'responsible'
    	in your individual situation?)

    
>    I am not suggesting you and your husband abstain from sex.  I'm
>    suggesting that you be prepared to accept the responsibility that 
>    goes with it.
    
   It seems that we don't agree on what that responsibility is.
   I feel that if I'm using the most reliable birth control
   available, then I've done what I'm responsible for doing.
   I also believe that by having an abortion and not raising
   a baby to be unloved, I'm fulfillingmy responsibility to
   what could potentially grow into a baby.
   
   And again, I feel that what you're saying boils down to
   "If you're not willing to have a baby, you shouldn't have sex."
   And I think it's fine for you
   to guide your life around that principle, but it's not fine
   for the government to force me into that.

    I want to express my gratitude to Marge and everyone responding
    to her thesis on abortion for the care they're taking to speak calmly
    and rationally about a *very* touchy subject.
    
    						=maggie

Marge, I cannot let this go by without comment.  Basically you want
all women to live up to your moral convictions.  I think it would
be alright if you had worded your whole thing in the first person
but to say that all women should go by your standards is unreasonable.

Taking responsibility for our acts is very one-sided in this case.
The woman actually ends up with almost 100% of the responsibility.  If
we are to take responsibility for our conscious, willful acts then:

1. FORCE the man involved to take something that will make him
nauseous if his mate becomes nauseous 
2. FORCE the man to carry around an increasingly heavy load at
all times as his mate adds weight
3. FORCE the man to be subjected physically to a rigorous "labor"
and definately go thru the real thing with his mate (if she wants
him there)
4. FORCE him to care for the child afterward or FORCE him to give 
it away

Silly?  Yes it sure is.  But that's exactly what what you are saying
would FORCE a woman to do in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.  
I have been thru three pregnancies and I would never want to have to 
go thru all that if I didn't WANT to be pregnant.  Actually, it was
when I was pregnant for the first time that I became so adamant about
this being a personal choice.  Noone should be forced to be pregnant
against her wishes - it is her body and her life.  Please, don't take 
away our choices.

By the way, of my three children, only one was planned for.  The
other two were statistical proof that birth control (two different
methods!) does not always work.  I happened to be in the position
where I was willing and able to have a child.  But if I wasn't,
it would have been ME to suffer the consequences and not my mate.

Debess

    
    
    .52
    
    You bring up an interesting point.  While I have no hard facts
    to support this opinion, it does seem that women who have had
    a child tend towards "pro-choice", while more opponents of
    abortion have not had a child.  Perhaps I'm just noticing how
    many men are avid anti-abortionists, and obviously they have
    not had the experience of pregnancy/childbirth.
    
    Has anyone ever seen a 'profile' of pro and anti individuals?
    
    Deb
    
    

The discussion of abortion seems always to be cast on moral grounds.  The
reality for many women is that the decision is made because of her economic
and social condition.  I would claim that you can decrease the numbers of
abortions by

-- not penalizing women economically for having children.  (Actually, this
   is slightly sexist: I really mean "not penalizing families.")

-- not attaching a social stigma to "illegitimacy."

Although I recognize the concerns of the "pro-life" fraction, many of them
frighten me by what appears to be a wish to punish a woman for having an
independent sexual existance.

Martin.

    RE: .54
    
    Yes. I agree on all points.
    
    RE: "Not penalizing families" - true, however, in cases of 
    single young women, or single female heads-of-household this
    really *is* penalizing women economically. Not to mention the numbers
    of women who are in situations in which they can't work/continue
    to work/go back to work, etc.
    
    --DE
    

    "Responsibility" doesn't necessarily equal "not disposing of a
    fetus". Responsibility can take the form of "not wanting to
    raise a child whne you can't give that child a good life" or
    "not wanting to increase the burden on our social system" or
    "not wanting to increase the population of an already overcrowded
    planet".
    
    Adoption is a wonderful alternative to abortion. I'm sure there
    are any number of wonderful people who can't have their own children
    and so would love to adopt. So where are they? Why are orphanages
    around the country chock full of children?
    
    The way I see it, the unwanted children who are already born should
    have priority over those who aren't.
    
    --- jerry (Pro-Choice, but Not Pro-Abortion)

    Side issue, Jerry, most of the kids waiting to be adopted are
    1. grade school age or older 2. physically and/or mentally
    challenged 3. emotionally disturbed 4. nonwhite. Tho most
    agencies actively recruit parents for these kids it isn't
    easy to find people who are able to parent kids in these
    categories.
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    Many children with their 'birth parents' are grade school
    age or older, physically and or mentally challenged, emotionally
    disturbed and or nonwhite.  Why are adoptive parents being more
    selective than birth parents are allowed to be?
    
    If abortion were banned, what would happen the resulting babies
    that fall in one or more of the above catagories?  Would they,
    too, grow up in foster homes or orphanages?
    
    I don't see this as a side issue.  I feel that those opposed to
    abortion are overly concerned with the fetus until it leaves the
    mothers womb, at which point the concern ends.
    
    Deb
    
    

    re:.57
    
    That's a good point, but it doesn't sway me. These children
    deserve a good home and parents as much as a fetus in the womb.
    
    The "non-white" business especially irks me. Assume that the
    government legislates against abortion, encouraging adoption
    instead. How does that affect black women? Will they be granted
    exemptions because their children will be less adoptable? Or
    will they be encouraged more than white women to keep their
    child regardless of the hardship because the children is less
    adoptable? If the former, can that be seen as amounting to a
    system of infanticide based on race? If the latter, will it
    keep more black women out of the work force?
    
    Two friends of mine went out of their way to adopt *three*
    non-white children -- they specifically asked for non-whites
    precisely because they knew the kids' race put them at a
    disadvantage in the adoption game. If only there were more
    people like them.
    
    The trouble is that there are people out there would would love
    to adopt a child -- as long as the child is white and in perfect
    health. These people should not be making choices for an unwilling
    expectant mother.
    
    --- jerry

    re .53 by Deb CSC32::WOLBACH-
    >                                 Perhaps I'm just noticing how
    > many men are avid anti-abortionists, and obviously they have
    > not had the experience of pregnancy/childbirth.
    
    Pro-choice men have upon occaision had some difficulty in
    joining/expressing solidarity with such movements, precisely because
    they were men, and distrusted by some members thereof.  I am thinking
    in specific of a women's group in Ithaca who negatively responded
    to well-meant offers of support during a take-back-the-night march,
    so violently that offers were not again extended when a zoning fight
    around an abortion clinic rezoning effort errupted a month later.
    I went to the zoning board meeting, but friends of mine did not,
    for that reason.  (We outnumbered the anti-abortionists 800-200!)
    But at the meeting, the men of our side were much quieter because
    the demonstration of support needed our presence, not our voices,
    and the women in charge were handling it quite well already.  So,
    men who are avidly pro-choice are not going to be seeking attention
    in those situations, maybe thats why you don't notice them.
    
    DougO
                                    

    	RE:  .60
    
    	Marge, if anything, I would characterize your stand as being
    	ANTI-responsibility (because of your wish to take the responsi-
    	bility AWAY from the people whose lives are directly affected
    	and forcing them to make the choice YOU might make if it were
    	your life that was involved.)
        
    	Your philosophy *also* seems 'anti-responsibility' to me because
    	you make no privisions for women who have done everything humanly
    	possible to prevent pregnancy but are caught by the failure
    	of the birth control itself (which, in my opinion, constitutes
    	a 'forced pregnancy.')  You seem willing to ignore the high
    	degree of responsibility shown by people who use birth control
    	correctly (as if it makes no difference to you at all.)  Your
    	only criteria is that the women willingly engaged in sex.
    
    	Clearly, your position has more to do with punishing women for
    	being willing to have sex than it has to do with responsibility.
    	In my opinion, a responsible ('civilized,' if you will) society
    	has better things to do than to devise ways to punish an entire
    	gender for being willing to engage in behavior (i.e., sex) that
    	comes naturally to almost every species on this planet.
    
   	Your system of penalties for being a sexual woman is so obvious 
   	that you even have contingencies for "first offenders" who can
    	claim ignorance in matters of birth control.  "Repeat offenders"
    	would be dealt with in a much more severe manner (as would all
    	other women who commit the crime of being willing to engage
    	in sexual relations in their *marriages* or other relationships.)
    
    	What sort of civilized society do you think you will have if
    	pregnancy/childbirth/maternal_death become characterized (ONCE
    	AGAIN) as the punishment that women receive by virtue of merely
    	being born WOMEN who engage in a natural human act (that, by
    	the way, STILL isn't always safe from the risk of conception no 
    	matter HOW much birth control is used)?

    Deb,
    
    Yes, but those kids started out with their parents as infants
    and have grown up with them. The things that make a child 'hard
    to place' as an orphan are not problems (or not necessarily problems)
    when dealing with a child that you have been with all her or his
    life. The agencies are looking out for the child's best wishes.
    It is very important for the potential adoptive parents to be selective
    for otherwise the adoption could fail and cause pyschological damage
    the child.
    
    My husband and I have adopted 4 mixed children of mixed race one
    of whom was 7 at the time we adopted him and who is also a physcially
    and mentally challenged child. Much as I am a champion of adoption
    I am also aware that is it not something that everyone is capable
    of doing.

    Jerry, Most agencies will not place children in families that they
    do not resemble racially. Many social workers feel that white parents
    cannot bring up nonwhite kids in a psyhologically healthy fashion.
    I personally disagree (obviously) but that is the main reason more
    cross racial adoptions do not occur.
    
    Bonnie

    Re .64, if a woman wants a baby getting pregnant *is* a blessing.
     If a woman doesn't want a baby getting pregnant and being forced
    to go through with it, is a penalty for having had sex.
    
    Personally, I think that since the medical knowledge exists for
    safe abortions that they should be legal for any woman who wants
    one, for any reason.  The way I see it is that if I get pregnant
   by accident, and decide I want an abortion, it's nobody else's damn
    business.  I don't think anybody has a right to try to control other
    people's lives to such a degree.
    
    Lorna
    

    Marge
    
    in re .65 in re .63 - I agree that the issues around adoption
    and sex education are closely intertwined with abortion. However
    we already have an on going note on adoption issues and which would
    be the more reasonable place to continue any discussion of adoption
    of waiting children and the reasons for social workers and potential
    parents decisons.
    
    Bonnie

    .66
       
    >Personally, I think that since the medical knowledge exists for
    >safe abortions that they should be legal for any woman who wants
    >one, for any reason.  
       
    Well thats a good way to look at it.  I am 18, I DON'T BOTHER to
    use contraceptives, and I get pregnant.  I get an abortion.  2 Years
    later, I am 20, I still DON'T BOTHER to use contraceptives, Ooops!
     I get pregnant again.  I get another abortion.  I am 24, I finally
    got hip to BC i want to get pregnant to keep the man I love, he
    leaves me after 8 weeks, oh well I guess i will have to get another
    abortion. Its my business right,  so what if I "DISPOSE" of 3 babies
    because "I am irresponsible"  no-ones business but my own....
       
       
       Tanya
       
       
       
       

    re:  .66    
    
    	EXACTLY!
    
    re:  .60
    
    My choice for abortion would be MY business, not anyone elses.
    At least allow me the choice to have an abortion if all other
    bc methods fail. If I HAD to bring a baby into this world,
    I guarantee it will be unwanted and unloved. Abortion is by NO MEANS
    my first choice of preventing a child to be born, and carrying
    to full term and give it up for adoption is not, in my view,
    a viable option. I do not want any government telling ME what
    I can and can't do to my own body. 
    
    pat
    

re: .68:
    abortion. Its my business right,  so what if I "DISPOSE" of 3 babies
    because "I am irresponsible"  no-ones business but my own....
       
Precisely.  It's no business but your own, and you must justify
your actions to yourself and take responsibility for them when
judged by whatever Deity weighs your life's actions.

I've known several women (and men) who have gone through abortions, and
find it hard to believe that any participant sees it as a casual matter.

Martin.

       
       
       

    
    I'm beginning to realize that I too am "pro-responsibility".
    I have a responsibility to myself, to act in my own best
    interests.  I have a responsibility to my family, most specifically
    to my son (the child I have already brought into this world).
    And, finally, I have a responsibility to society.  
    
    Therefore, I will act in a responsible manner, and that may
    include making tough decisions.  The decision to discontinue
    an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy might be one of those decisions.
    
    I resent anyone suggesting that responsiblity for my decisions,
    decisions that impact my life and the lives of my family, should
    be assumed by the government or any other individual.
    
    Deborah
    
    

    re: .71
    
    I concur completely.
    
    -Jody
    

    	RE:  .71
    
    	Deb, I'm with you.  Count me as "pro-responsibility," too (by your
    	definition, with which I agree completely!)

    	Thanks!

    

Re: responsibility

	Seems to me that the way Marge would have it, the woman is the only 
one here that is forced to take all the responsibility for something that
2 people engaged in. What of the man? If the woman doesn't want the child,
she must give up 9 months of her life and then give away the baby, while the
man is free to make more babies and have absolutely no responsibilty
at all. Something is wrong with this picture. What if the woman is forced to
leave her job for an extended period? What if she loses her job completely?
What if she is forced to give up her education with no chance of getting back
the money she's put into it? Who will take care of her then? The way I see 
it, unless I get raped, I have as much chance of getting pregnant as a 
vasectomy has of failing. I think the 2 of us are being damned responsible 
here. Now you're saying that I should abstain or take that (whatever percent) 
chance. I wonder what would happen if all the women abstained. Do men have to 
abstain as well? We know what we would do if I became pregnant. If I couldn't 
get an abortion here, I would leave the country, and if they didn't let me 
back then it wouldn't matter any more, because freedom in this country would 
be lost.

Jenna

    Just a (brief?) diversion.  Since Bush/Dukakis debates prompted
    the latest set of replies....
    
    The Republican Party Platform is quite clear, no abortions, period.
    Not for rape, not for incest, not to save the life of the mother.
    
    
    Not even to save the life of the mother.
    
    
    It was argued in the committe that the language in the platform "that
    the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be
    infringed" meant "...that men and fetuses have a right to life at all
    times, but women lose that right when the become pregnant."
    
    An amendment was offered in the platform committee to change the
    language, but was defeated, since "We must never defeat the rights
    of the fetus."
    
    
    George Bush has stated that this is not his position, at least
    that's his latest statement.
    
    However, Senator Hatch of Utah, Senator Humphrey of New Hampshire and
    Representative Hyde of Idaho threatened to fight the ticket if Alan
    Simpson of Wyoming was selected as VP.  Simpson is pro-choice.
    Humphrey backed Dan Quayle.  Quayle won. 
    
    Hyde doesn't offer advice and consent on Supreme Court nominations.
    Hatch and Humphrey do.
    
    Something to think about.
    
    								-mr. bill

    you mean we'd spend our lives chained to vibrators and/or
    hands or other objects? Gee.....I mean that's ok once in
    a while, but I'd miss the "real thing"!

re:< Note 183.76 by NOVA::M_DAVIS "Old-fashioned Grin Mill" >

>    If all the women abstained, Jenna, the men would have to take things
>    in hand.
    
Why did I have a feeling someone was going to say that :-). But realisticly,
I would think rapes would skyrocket, which means the incidence of
women have unprotected sex would increase. Which means more "allowed"
abortions, which would defeat the whole purpose of abstaining in the first
place.

sigh

    re: .78 
    
    If rape was a crime of sex instead of a crime of violence, you
    might be right. 
    
    It would probably be the number of prostitutes that increased
    rather than the number of rapes.
    
    --bonnie

    The incidence of oral sex might skyrocket as well.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .80
    
    And just think of all the calories...
    

re: .81
    And just think of all the calories...

Actually, it's not that bad.  Someone actually did a study once and decided
there were more efficient ways of gaining weight.

But seriously folks, one of the reasons there were so many prostitutes
(and prostitution/mistresses were more acceptable) in the last century
was that women were often justifiably terrified of getting pregnant because
of the risk of death during delivery.  Wander through a cemetary and look
at the dates on the headstones, if you doubt me.

In Sissela Bok's biography of her mother Alva Myrdal (mentioned in the Books
note), she discusses Alva's mother, who was more or less driven insane
by the fear of another pregnancy, spending much of her life as an invalid
recluse.

Myrdal herself, in the book she wrote with her husband Gunnar "Crisis in
Population" noted that the declining number of children in Sweden was due
in large part to economic issues, especially the lack of affordable housing.
(Alva felt she had a duty to practice what she preached, and there is
a long passage in the books discussing her difficulty in conceiving
herself: she had three children and several miscarriages, including a
miscarriage when she was 43.)

Martin.

       Marge, I'll worry about the poor aborted fetus after the world
       full of starving,abused and unwanted children *who are already
       born* have been taken care of. I never hear anti-choice standard
       bearers volunteer to take care of the *left over* children
       already in this world.

       I don't like the idea of abortion as standard birth control, that
       is irresponsible. But to remove it as a last ditch resource
       solves nothing. In a nation where the poor are losing more
       everyday and the republicans want to take yet more away, how can
       you pretend that adding a lot of unwanted children won't cause
       social disaster. If *I* was starving in the street I'd get my
       buddies together (all those other unwanted excess children) and
       break into your house and take the food I needed to survive. If
       you are going to kill us when we do that (or place us all in jail
       and pay to feed us) then what have you gained as far as your
       morality is concerned. Is it OK to kill the begger but not the
       baby that will become the begger? liesl

    
    
    Marge, I think I have made it clear that  I do not agree
    with your stance on abortion.  However, I do admire you for speaking
    up for your beliefs, especially in a forum when you can be  reasonably
    certain that you will encounter much opposition.
    
    Deb
    
    

    Being a child of a mother who died in childbirth, because there was
    no safe way to abort the fetus she shouldn't of had to have, I have
    been strong pro-choice since the discussions started.
    

    vivian

           <<< MOSAIC::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 183.85                     Abortion Concerns                       85 of 88
AKOV11::BOYAJIAN "That was Zen; this is Dao"         26 lines  29-SEP-1988 03:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [Offensive remark deleted. See next reply. --- jerry]
    
    Like Deb, I too have to admire Marge -- even though I disagree with
    her -- for standing firm.
    
    She does have a point, too. All the talk about responsibility and
    choice could just as easily be applied to murder. We as a society
    recognize that the law *must* see to it that a person does not take
    the life of a human being -- that that person's freedom to choose
    does not take precedence over another person's freedom to live.
    And that that person must take responsibility for his or her actions.
    
    There are too many other factors involved in the abortion issue
    to make it as clear cut, which is why I have a pro-choice position.
    But that doesn't mean that Marge's position isn't a valid one.
    
    re: back a few
    
    It's interesting that the Republican Platform regarding abortion
    is that abortion should be outlawed even to save the mother's life.
    Do they also feel that killing another person in self-defense
    should be outlawed as well? It seems clear to me that that's what
    abortion to save the mother's life is.
    
    --- jerry

    It has been made known to me that some people found a remark
    I made in my original note (185.83) to be offensive. My remark
    was not intended to convey an implicit value judgement, though
    I am more than willing to admit that such a judgement could
    be inferred from it. Not only did I not mean to imply a value
    judgment, but I vehemently disagree with the idea that such a
    judgement would imply. Still, at best, I am guilty of clumsy
    writing, and the fact that I did not mean offense is certainly
    no excuse for the fact that I *did* offend. To those who found
    offense in my remark, I offer my most sincere apologies.
    
    If I may be allowed to explain what it was that I *did* intend
    by my remark...
    
    A comment had been made earlier that suggested that if women
    were to abstain from sex with men to decrease the chances of
    accidental pregnancy to zero, that logically speaking, men
    would have to abstain as well. Jody then suggested that if
    this happened, the incident of rape would likely increase.
    Bonnie R. then added (or, to be more accurate, gave as an
    alternative suggestion) prostitution. Lorna then added oral
    sex to the list of practices likely to increase. And then, I
    added homosexuality.
    
    Other than the fact (or rather, conjecture) that all four would
    likely follow from the premise, I do not wish to suggest that
    there is any connection/equivalency/whatever between homosexuality
    (or oral sex, for that matter) and rape or prostitution -- any
    more, I'm sure, than Lorna meant to suggest that oral sex was
    equivalent to them. Quite the contrary, in fact. Though I am a
    heterosexual myself, I consider homosexuality to be a perfectly
    healthy and positive practice for those who wish to engage in it,
    and any friends of mine who are homosexuals have my full support.
    
    Again, my apologies to those who were offended by my remark.
    
    --- jerry

    	When I was pregnant (and alone) with my son in 1970, I had the
    	option of a safe, legal abortion (a free one, in fact!) in
    	Berkeley, California (where I was living at the time, and where
    	he was later born.)  Not only were legal abortions easily
    	available in California, but Berkeley (as a city) had dozens
    	of programs to help people with low or non-existent incomes
    	(including offering free abortions to those who needed them.)
    
    	When I made my choice to have my son, it was with my eyes wide
    	open.  No one made my choice for me.  On the contrary, everyone
    	I consulted at the time made it clear that the most important
    	thing was for me to do what *I* felt was the right thing for
   	me at that time in my life.
    
    	As a woman just out of high school with no work skills or
    	education, having the baby and raising him alone was clearly
    	the most difficult path I could have taken, but after much
    	thought and honest soul-searching, it was the right thing for
    	me!  I knew how difficult our lives would be, but I also knew
    	that I wanted my future child more than anything else in the
    	world and that all the difficult times would be worth whatever
    	I had to go through (because it was MY CHOICE and I made it
    	while completely aware of what it would mean to my life.)
    
    	Once the choice was made, I was as thrilled as any parent could
    	possibly be about my upcoming family.  I can remember yelling
    	at the top of my lungs while driving over the Bay Bridge into
    	San Francisco, "I'm going to have a BABY!!!!"  It was the most
    	exciting thing that had ever happened to me and I was joyous
    	beyond belief!
    
    	Before my pregnancy was remotely visible, I can remember feeling
    	my lower abdomen for hours to see if I could feel any kind of
    	new firmness there.  When the firmness could be felt (like a
    	little orange in my stomach,) I remember gently feeling it daily
    	(knowing that my baby was starting to grow bigger in there.)
    
    	When it came time (in the fourth month) to feel movement, I
    	patiently felt my stomach night after night waiting for the
    	first little kick, and when it came I was just beside myself.
    	It felt like a little butterfly inside me.
    
    	I dreamed about my baby almost every night I was pregnant, and
    	I scoured the stores for just the right newborn nightgowns and
    	tiny undershirts (and used to hold the ones I bought for hours
    	trying to imagine what it would be like to take care of a person
    	who was small enough to wear something like that.)  I was working
    	as a telephone operator in the Oakland overseas office at the
    	time, so I didn't have much money, but most of what I did have
    	was spent on things for him.
    
    	When it was time for me to deliver, things went badly for us
    	(even though we had no painkillers and used the LaMaze method.)
    	We had last minute complications that put us both on the critical
    	list for days, but even THAT part was worth it to me.  We ended
    	up OK (and I had my little family.)
    
    	The key to what I'm trying to say is that my son was NOT born
    	because he was accidently conceived by two relative children
    	who made a mistake in birth control.  My son was CHOSEN and
    	was WANTED every bit as much as if he had been planned ahead
    	of time.
    
    	In order for my son to have been clearly and joyously CHOSEN
    	by me, I had to have been GIVEN the CHOICE (which I was.)
    
    	Choice doesn't simply mean that one is free to have an abortion.
    	It means that one is also free to make a *conscious decision* to 
    	bring a life into this world with joy and love.

    
    
    Gee, Suzanne.  I'd never looked at it that way before.  That's
    EXACTLY how I feel about my son......
    
    Good note.
    
    Deb
    
    

       The note on being given a choice making the difference reminded
       me my catechism class (anglican catholic)when we discussed free
       will and whether we had it or not. One of the arguments brought
       forth was that there would be no point to life or resurection if
       we had no choice about how we acted. If you have no choice you are
       responsible for nothing that you do because you had no other way
       to act. Life is full of tough decisions and the more advanced our
       medical science becomes the more difficult it will be to make the
       choices. liesl

    Re .93, yes, Suzanne, I agree you make a good point about having
    the chance to choose.  When I got pregnant with my daughter, I was
    married but we had only been married for 6 months when I found out
    I was 2 months pregnant, and since I was on the pill it was a surprise.
     My ex-husband had previously told me that he wanted to wait at
    least 4 yrs. to start a family.  When I told him I was pregnant
    he wasn't happy at first.  We talked about abortion but then as
    we discussed the situation we decided that since I was already
    pregnant, and since we did want a baby someday, we'd have this one.
     Once we had made the decision we were both excited and happy about
    the baby, and by the time she was born she was definitely wanted
    and loved.
    
    Lorna
    

          Pro-life advocates have a powerful argument when they
          ask, "When does life begin?" Their answer is, "Life
          begins at conception." And from this premise, the
          argument flows with elegant simplicity: If life begins
          at conception, the fetus is entitled to protection of
          its life; therefore, abortion is murder.

          And in their premise, they're absolutely right. There
          is no denying that some radical, marvelous--miraculous,
          if you will--change takes place in the egg from the
          moment of fertilization, and a complex progress is set
          in motion leading inexorably to the birth of a human
          being. Unless that process is terminated, of course.

          Pro-abortion critics have raised biological and
          philosophical counter-arguments, usually contending
          that becoming a human being is an ongoing physical
          process, and thus we don't know when a fetus becomes
          "fully" human. Well, I'm sure there are many who
          sincerely believe these arguments, but I'm sure there
          are also many for whom the arguments are merely a
          self-serving intellectual prop for views they hold for
          selfish or ideological reasons ("ideological" meaning
          that it seems the thing for "enlightened" people to
          believe). The legalistic results of such counter-
          arguments are attempts to designate a certain week or
          month of pregnancy as the point after which abortion
          is prohibited (presumably because at that point it
          becomes "murder").

          But having argued so forcefully for a definition of
          the crime, the pro-lifers fail to follow their own
          logic through in the area of penalties for committing
          the crime. That is, what should be the penalty for
          a woman who has an abortion and for a doctor who
          performs one?

          What do you believe is the appropriate penalty for
          premeditated murder of an innocent, defenseless
          victim? If you're the "average" American, you say it's
          capital punishment. Otherwise, you probably say life
          imprisonment, perhaps with no chance of parole.

          OK, assume abortion is murder. The victim is clearly
          innocent: there's no issue of provocation or threat,
          except in the rare instance where the mother's life is
          jeopardized by the pregnancy. The crime is almost
          always premeditated: the very acts of setting up
          appointments for abortion counseling and for the
          abortion itself constitute evidence of premeditation.
          And since for every murder there must be one or more
          murderers, it is obvious that both the mother and the
          doctor are active participants in the murder--as much
          as if one delivered a love rival or a police officer
          into a trap and the other fired the fatal bullet.

          The logic, then, is inescapable: the woman who has an
          abortion and the doctor who performs it must get the
          death penalty, or whatever maximum penalty society
          imposes. But, to my knowledge, no right-to-life group
          or political figure advocates executing women who have
          abortions.

          Why is this? I'll tell you: pure politics! And pure
          hypocrisy. The right-to-lifers know that the public
          would never approve of its agenda if women were to be
          executed. Politicians know that they can sew up right-
          wing votes with anti-abortion platitudes; however,
          they also know that many of their "conservative"
          supporters would not hesitate to have an abortion
          if giving birth would interfere with their careers or
          personal lives, and would not hesitate to encourage
          their girl friends or wives to have abortions.
          And these supporters certainly would not tolerate
          an America where they not only couldn't obtain an
          abortion legally, but would be subject to capital
          punishment if they obtained one illegally.

          Why, then, shouldn't women who have abortions be
          executed? (And doctors who perform abortions too,
          but let's address that a bit later.) The reasons I've
          heard so far from "right-to-lifers" are:

          o  Women shouldn't be penalized if they "do not share"
             the pro-lifers' views.

          o  Women who have abortions "are just as much victims"
             as their aborted babies.

          o  Capital punishment "would not be a deterrent" to a
             woman contemplating an abortion.

          o  The Bible tells us to "love the sinner but hate the
             sin"; we can hate abortion yet still love those who
             have and perform abortions.

          What a bunch of naive, knee-jerk, LIBERAL NONSENSE!
          Why, if I said any of those things about a someone who
          murdered a police officer or merchant, conservatives
          would denounce me. If Michael Dukakis said any of
          those things, the howls from the Bush camp would
          be deafening. And yet, if abortion is murder, and
          if we're going to crack down on murder and other
          violent crime, there can be no escaping the conclusion
          that women who have abortions must pay the ultimate
          penalty.

          In case what I've just said isn't obvious, let's look
          at each of the reasons given by pro-lifers for not
          executing women who have abortions.

          o  Merely "not sharing" the views of society (and law
             embodies society's view, until the law is changed
             or overturned) does not excuse one from obeying
             laws or from suffering the consequences of not
             obeying. Would anyone advocate letting me to commit
             crimes without penalty if I said I "did not share"
             George Bush's or Michael Dukakis's views on rape,
             cop-killing, drug-dealing, child abuse, and other
             crimes? If abortion is made illegal because it's
             murder (the right-to-lifers' position), then "not
             sharing" the law's position is irrelevant.

          o  If a criminal is himself or herself a "victim," we
             have provisions in our existing laws to distinguish
             this--there are several degrees of murder, several
             killing crimes not classified as murder (such
             as manslaughter), and several possible defenses
             (insanity, self-defense). Each instance of abortion
             could be put to these tests. An abortion when the
             mother's life is jeopardized by the pregnancy
             is clearly self-defense. A scared 14-year-old
             pressured into having an abortion by her 16-year-
             old boyfriend might claim she was temporarily
             insane or that she was coerced. However, a 28-
             year-old executive who has an abortion because
             giving birth would interfere with her career plans,
             or because it force her to adopt a more modest
             life style, would clearly be guilty of unprovoked,
             premeditated murder.

          o  The claim that women would not be "deterred" from
             having abortions by capital punishment is absurd!
             The people most deterred by potential penalties
             for crime are those who are generally law-abiding
             anyway and who have a lot to lose by breaking the
             law. Does anyone seriously think drug dealers and
             Mafia "hit men" will shrink from crime out of fear
             of capital punishment, whereas pregnant women will
             commit murder without fear of death?

          o  If we are to "love" those who have and perform
             abortions, we must likewise love cop-killers,
             rapists, muggers, and drug dealers. But don't we
             already show our "love"--a genuine, "tough" love--
             for these latter criminals by imposing on them
             the penalties demanded by our judicial system?
             If a Bible-believing conservative shows love
             for murderers and their victims by executing the
             murderers, and if abortion is murder, then the way
             to demonstrate true, consistent love is to execute
             women who have abortions.

          The inescapable conclusion is that if abortion is
          murder, women will have to be executed, or given
          whatever other penalty society reserves for murderers.
          And clearly the doctors who perform abortions will
          be murderers also. But can anyone seriously imagine
          a doctor going to the electric chair for performing
          an abortion? The outcry from the politically powerful
          American Medical Association would be tremendous, as
          would be the sympathy for such "martyr" doctors among
          the general public.

          So, what's the most likely scenario if abortion does
          become illegal, whether through a Constitutional
          amendment, new laws, or a Supreme Court reversal of
          the Roe vs. Wade decision? It's likely that women
          having abortions will suffer no penalties at all,
          and doctors performing abortions will be subject only
          to small fines (a "slap on the wrist"). But if this
          happens, it's really no different from what we have
          now: abortions available "on demand," with the only
          limiting factor being the woman's ability to pay.
          Except now she'll have to pay more.

          Ironically, "advances" in medical science may make the
          whole argument academic. If the new "abortion pill"
          developed in France proves "safe and effective" in
          inducing abortions, doctors can be out of the picture
          completely, and the burden will be placed entirely on
          the woman: to obtain the pill illegally, and to take
          it. It will be murder if the law calls it that, but
          the murderer will never be caught, because the crime
          will be carried out in private, and there will be no
          body or other evidence left around to be discovered.

          Another potential irony is that making abortion
          murder could cause capital punishment to be abolished
          completely in America. If abortion is murder yet the
          murderers get off scot-free, and if you were a defense
          lawyer trying to prevent the execution of your client
          (an ax-murderer), wouldn't you point out the obvious
          unfairness and discrimination in the law: one set of
          cold-blooded murderers gets no penalty, but your cold-
          blooded murderer faces death! Any Supreme Court that
          wasn't completely blinded by right-wing ideology would
          have to agree, and either abolish capital punishment
          or force it to be applied in cases of abortion.

          Most people regard abortion as ugly and as in some
          way the taking of a "life." However, deep in their
          hearts they don't really believe that the unborn baby
          deserves all the rights and protection of a born human
          being. I suspect that most "right-to-lifers" feel this
          way too--again, deep in their hearts. Certainly this
          is inconsistent and illogical, but people are often
          inconsistent and illogical in their views.

          The real problem, and the real "crime" in all
          this, is the manipulation of pro-life sentiment by
          politicians and leaders of certain organizations.
          These manipulators claim to be pro-life, but they
          cynically avoid the issue of penalties--the one issue
          that will either expose them as hypocrites, or that
          will force them to confront hard issues and take
          potentially "unpopular" stands. And God forbid they
          should attempt to persuade the American people of the
          rightness of a consistent stand on penalties. Are they
          afraid the people "wouldn't understand" - and worse
          yet, vote them out of office?

          The issue of penalties will not, and cannot, simply
          "go away." 
          ---------------------------------------------- 
          [Just today--after I had written the preceding--I saw an 
          article on abortion penalties by Ellen Goodman. I agree with 
          her analysis, and wish more people would look beyond the 
          slogans to the *implications* of a given position.]
          [In case it's not obvious... I don't favor capital punishment
          for women or doctors, or any penalty. I don't think abortion
          should be a crime. I have conflicting views, though, on the
          fundamental issues. I believe most views that would ban
          abortion but allow numerous "popular" exceptions are based
          on moralistic sentiment -- as are views that would allow abortions
          except where the woman is not "responsible." It's not whether
          we like or dislike the woman; the issues are: what are we
          killing when we abort? and what penalties should be imposed?
          I'm just not willing to impose life imprisonment or death on
          women who have abortions.]
          [I don't know whether I'll post this in other Notes conferences
          also; however, if anyone wants to, you have my permission to
          post it. For any other use, please ask me first.]

    re: .97 
    
    Actually, Chuck, a lot of pro-lifers do want to impose a life
    sentence on the woman -- a life sentence of motherhood.  They
    repeatedly talk about a woman avoiding responsibility for her
    actions by having an abortion, and that she should have to face
    the consequences of choosing to have sex. 
    
    Which tells me almost as much about their attitudes towards sex
    and children as it does about their respect for life . . .
    
    --bonnie 

    Re .97, why all this talk about the woman being punished if abortion
    were to considered murder?  If that were to be the case (and it
    would certainly be appalling if it were), then why shouldn't the
    father of the aborted child also be executed?  (I mean while we're
    busy executing people let's get him to.)
    
    Many women get abortions because the father of the child is not
    willing to help raise the child if it is born, and the mother cannot
    afford to raise it herself.  You mention career women who would
    have to live more modestly if they were to raise a child.  What
    about women who have jobs such as secretary, or waitress, or
    salesperson who wouldn't even be able to afford childcare, and would
    either have to go on wellfare or become street people and maybe
    freeze and starve to death with the kid, if they tried to raise
    it.  But, so called pro-lifers don't give a damn what happens to
    these precious fetuses once they are born and turn into real human
    being who need to eat and have a place to live.
    
    Lorna
    

re .100

>    But, so called pro-lifers don't give a damn what happens to
>    these precious fetuses once they are born and turn into real human
>    being who need to eat and have a place to live.
    
	Anti-lifers don't even give a damn that long.

				ToM_K

    re: .101
    
    I happen to agree with what Lorna pointed out in her note .100.
    It's real easy to come up with some flippant remark to dismiss the
    fact that we live in the wealthiest country in the world yet we
    have thousands upon thousands of children who go hungry every single
    day of their lives and there are few, if any, glimmers of brightness
    on their horizons.
    
    I worked for the W.I.C. program for 5 years of my life.  I've seen
    poverty and malnutrition and starving just ain't glamorous.  Try
    it sometime.  And then there is the ripple effect of malnutrition,
    these kids are never able to get an education because you can't
    learn if you don't have nourishment for your brain.
    
    We live in a country where top executives of corporations get paid
    millions of dollars a year.  I still don't understand why any one
    individual needs that much money.  And that goes for movie stars
    too.  They can't spend that much money in a lifetime, so, they can
    leave it to someone else to perpetuate greed?
    
    If every child in this country had adequate food, shelter and medical
    care, these issues that we debate might be very different.  With
    all our technology and medical 'advancements', this country has
    a pathetically high infant mortality rate.  There has been alot
    of ground lost during these past 8 years of the Reagan reign
    of terror, the starving children are even hungrier than before Reagan
    got into office.  Reagan and his band of greedy bloodsuckers are
    the biggest bunch of hypocrits to come down the road in quite a
    while.   
    
    So go take a stroll down Blue Hill Ave. in Roxbury, or hang out
    in Dudley Square, or the housing project that sits under the Mystic
    River Bridge and see for yourself how much better off some of our
    citizens are since we've had 8 years of a Republican.
    

    	RE:   .101
    
    	>  Anti-lifers [SIC] don't even give a damn that long.
    
    	Wrong.  Most of the PRO-CHOICE people that I know *also* believe
    	in programs that help the poor and homeless (whereas most of
    	the so-called pro-life people that I have met are *against* having
   	a penny of their tax dollars go to programs that help the poor
    	or the homeless.)
    
    	Conservatives want to get the government "off the backs of the
    	people" (but INTO the wombs of 220 million women in this country.)
    	
    	Conservatives want to save the lives of unborn children (but
    	then say, "Why should MY tax dollars be spent feeding the
    	so-called 'freeloaders' who end up on government assistance,"
    	which is where many, MANY of the 'saved fetuses' will end up.)
    
    	I'd take so-called 'pro-lifers' a lot more seriously if I could
    	see them adopt the stand that they will spend their tax dollars
    	(and/or OPEN THEIR HOMES) to help the women who would be forced
    	to risk their lives in pregnancy and to support (and possibly
    	RAISE) all the children who would be born because of this.
    
    	I'd like to see them put their own money and lives where their
    	mouths are (for once) as a GROUP STAND.

    re: .104
    
    I find it interesting that the only thing you could comment on is
    the one pot shot I took at Rean even though you mentioned that there
    are or statements that you disagree with.
    
    And to further the discussion, most economically disadvantaged women
    don't have access to adequate pre-natal care which vastly increases
    their risks for complications during the pregnancy.
    
    And contrary to your assumption that people only think about social
    issues during elections, I, and many of my friends area aware and
    actively trying  to do something about said issues on a regular
    basis.
    
    BTW, W.I.C. does not stand for women in construction, it is the
    acronym for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants
    and Children...a food program geared to provide food supplements
    that are chosen particularly for iron or vitamin content.
    
    I spent those five years at WIC in and out of the poorest neighborhoods
    in Boston. When it comes to the issue of the effects of malnutrition
    on children, I do happen to know what I'm talking about.
    

    re .102, Laura,
    
    I don't much enjoy political season in America.  Its a time when
    many of us feel compelled to express and defend our deepest, truest,
    most valid-for-us philosophical and ethical beliefs about what is
    right and what is wrong, in our government and in our society. 
    That part of it isn't what I dislike, I think its a sign of an
    incredibly healthy body politic, that cares about issues that matter.

    The part I dislike is when we see people for whom we have the highest
    regard and respect forget that there is room in even the most
    acrimonious of disagreements for acknowledgement that the other person
    just might be acting from as deeply held a set of principles or
    philosophy or belief-system as our own.  Even if we don't understand
    them or their beliefs, we are guilty of a worse crime, that of
    arrogant intolerance or a smug sense of moral superiority, when
    we cast such epithets as
    
    > Reagan and his band of greedy bloodsuckers are the biggest bunch 
    > of hypocrits to come down the road in quite a while.
    
    I happen to disagree with your position in this statement, and in
    several others you included in your note.  I respect your beliefs,
    your passionate defense of them, and your rights to continue to
    express yourself as you choose.  I am asking for the same respect,
    acknowledgement that I hold my positions in good moral conscience 
    and with deeply held philosophical beliefs, in return.
    
    Thank you.
    
    DougO                                             
    
    P.S.  Please note that this digression from topic does not address
    my opinions on the issue of abortion rights.  It is solely intended
    to request that the level of the discussion rise from epithets 
    to discourse.

       I saw a bumper sticker that says it all

       KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY BODY

       Suzzanne is right, pro-lifers seem to be the first in line to
       bash the homeless and say they deserve to starve cause they're
       shiftless no-goods.

       To Tom_K - go visit a home/hospital for the hopelessly retarded
       and physically disabled. I've seen sights that made me burst into
       tears. 24 years old infants with deformed limbs drooling and
       babbling with all the knowlege and insight of a newborn. Monsters
       left to ROT out of sight of the proper people who forced them to
       be born. And these same people want to cut the social programs
       that staff these homes for the discarded refuse of our society.
       Take your righteousness and stuff it. liesl

    re: .105
    
    so why do you keep repeating yourself?  We heard that same request
    in a prior note.
    

    Oh yeah, poverty is silly.  It hasn't been Dukakis who has been
    trying to cut WIC funding and foodstamps funding and medical care
    funding for the past 8 years.
    

    re: .110
    
    Actually, I thought this was a discussion about abortion concerns.
    But I've got an idea...
    
    When the 'pro-life' men have given birth to a baby or they understand
    from experience the terror of a back-alley abortion, or the despair
    of having the real responsibility forraising a child in poverty,
    then come back and talk to us..                    
    
    Thi becoming a contest of who can go one up...so I'm just going
    to check out of this discussion.
    
    

Re. most since .97:

I'm disappointed that there's been virtually no follow-up on 
*penalties* that would/should/could be imposed if abortion becomes
illegal, but instead lots of emotional appeals and slogans.

For God's sake, you "pro-choice" people, please recognize that
in penalties you have what could be the most compelling issue so
far -- compelling in that it cuts across traditional ideological
grounds and could force a number of "pro-lifers" into a dilemma:
either agree that women and doctors must be executed, or legalize
abortion.

If abortion really is murder, then human life must be considered as
starting and entitled to full protection at conception. If the fetus
is anything less than a human entitled to full protection, then
killing it cannot be murder, since "murder" is reserved for the killing
of human beings. (You can't be charged with "murdering" a dog or cat.)
If right-to-lifers seriously maintain that abortion is murder, then
they must be forced to accept the consequences of such a position.
To allow right-to-lifers to "get off the hook" on the penalties issue
is to cheapen the meaning of the term "murder" and weaken the pro-choice
argument.

So, all the arguments about abused children, deformed children, mentally
ill children, families in poverty, the homeless -- and the hostility 
of many "conservatives" to poor kids once they change status from unborn 
to born -- are just a bunch of liberal mush to your critics. And if fact, 
such emotional arguments are easy to refute: government and/or voluntary
agencies "should do more"; the poor must be forced to act more "responsibly";
pro-choice people are Nazis who would slaughter [unborn] babies just because
they have handicaps; what if Beethoven's mother had had an abortion?; etc. etc.
In other words, your "liberal" and emotional appeals may make you feel good
(and I personally agree in my heart with many of them); however, they're
useless in winning over unbiased skeptics or in forcing your opponents
to reexamine their fundamental assumptions.

Let me suggest this to pro-choice folks: The next time someone says abortion 
is murder or baby killing, *don't* go into a tirade about poverty, child abuse,
and hypocritical right-wingers. Instead, just ask: "OK, let's assume you're
right about that. What then should be the penalty for a woman who has an
abortion? and for the doctor who performs it?"  If the answer is anything
less than capital punishment or life imprisonment, trap the person in
his or her own inconsistency: If it's "murder," why don't you want to
treat it as murder? If you don't want to treat it as murder, aren't you being
hypocritical and using sleazy rhetoric? And if abortion really isn't 
murder, on what grounds would you make it illegal? (Because it's "sinful"? 
or "ugly"? I don't find "sinful" and "ugly" sufficient grounds for making 
something illegal.)

P.S. I don't know most of you personally. I do know Tom Krupinski (Tom_K),
though, and he's taken a lot of flak from some respondants. Tom's a thoughtful 
conservative and a decent guy; we just differ on most major political issues. 

    re: .99, if I might go back so far --
    
    Marge, I was trying to convey the tone of a fund-soliciting letter
    I got from a "pro-life" group a couple of weeks ago that seemed
    fairly typical of the things I've seen from that camp.  I thought
    it was quite clear that they took a very punitive attitude towards
    pregnancy and abortion -- "don't let 'em off easy."  I would enter
    the whole thing but it's 4 pages long . . . 
    
    Sorry I didn't make it clear those weren't my own views of the
    situation . . . though as Lorna points out in .101, if you're
    hacking a minimum wage job with no education, no support from the
    father, and no hope of support from society, you might be
    justified in viewing childbirth as more of a punishment than a
    delight. 
    
    --bonnie

    Actually, the hypocricy of the "pro-lifers" (Whose life?) is
    pretty obvious even now.  When they introduced a constitutional
    amendment (in Rhode Island, I believe) stating that a fetus was
    a full human being from the moment of conception, they included
    one exception -- it was not a person for tax purposes.
    
    Yes, folks, you could not deduct your fetus on your income tax.
    
    Well, why not?  If as They claim, it is an inexorable process
    from conception to birth, the State is deprived of only a tiny
    amount of money, surely?  However, if the proponents of this
    amendment knew, as I know, that the path to birth is a rocky
    road which only ten per cent. of conceptions are able to traverse,
    then that exception makes sense.  In the slimiest (my opinion)
    possible way, of course.
    
    						Ann B.

    re: .112
    
    Although I feel that the issue of fetus vs. person is one that may
    never be easily resolved, I wonder, truly wonder about the following
    scenario...
    
    Abortion is deemed as murdering a person.  The punishment for murder
    is execution, as so many 'right to lifers' want...
    
    So I ask, why do we kill people who have killed people to show that
    killing people is wrong?
    
    
    And for any man who has an opinion about abortion, again I say,
    come back and talk to us after you've given birth to your first
    child or have had to raise children on the salary that most women
    earn. 
     

    Women have more to lose, more physical danger, but fathers have
    a right to an opinion too.  
    
    --bonnie

If abortion is murder, then what should the penalties be for a miscarriage?

If the fetus is a person, should a pregnant woman (or a woman who might
possibly become pregnant someday) be entitled to steal food, clothing,
and housing on the principal that one may commit a lesser crime (theft)
to prevent the greater (murder/manslaughter)?

M.

    re:  If abortion is murder, then what should the penalties be for
         a miscarriage?
    
    Technically, a miscarriage during a certain time span is 
    called a spontaneous abortion.  
    
    Is it a possibility that the spontaneous abortion was due to defective
    sperm?  If that could be proven by scientists than one can
    see that the courts should put the father on trial.  What 
    should the charges be and the penalties?

    re .119,.120:
    
    Lets not reduce this discussion to the absurd. A miscarriage is
    the death of a fetus. It is no more murder than "crib-death" (SIDS)
    of an infant.
    
    .120: defective sperm as grounds for manslaughter? try to prove
    it. it could just as easily have been a defective ovum. or neither.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /

Re: < Note 183.115 by PRYDE::ERVIN "My Karma Ran Over My Dogma" >
    
>    And for any man who has an opinion about abortion, again I say,
>    come back and talk to us after you've given birth to your first
>    child or have had to raise children on the salary that most women
>    earn. 
     
That's illogical. It's also not very smart, in that you alienate people
needlessly. There are plenty of mothers who are active in the right-to-life
movement, and there are mothers who are pro-choice; so merely having had a 
child doesn't guarantee that you'll have the "correct" view. It does mean,
though, that the woman is better able to experience and communicate the
emotional aspects of motherhood. 

But let's look at your premise, which appears to be: Abortion is OK if
giving birth would cause economic hardship. Now, if abortion is not murder,
then it's OK for economic reasons or any other reason (whim, shame, etc.).
However, if abortion is murder, then economics are irrelevant. If abortion
is indeed murder, then substitute "adult" for "fetus" is all possible
"exceptions" when you'd permit abortion. For instance, would you be
justified in killing me (a 41-year-old man) if:

	- I was conceived as a result of rape or incest?
	- My parents were drunkards or child abusers?
	- I posed a threat to your economic status? (Perhaps I'm a rival
          for a promotion you want, thus posing a threat to your "career
          plans.")
	- I'm handicapped or mentally ill?

I assume you answered "No" to all these cases. If you believe that abortion
is murder, then you must also answer "No" if you substitute "a fetus" for
"I" and "my" in the above questions.

Finally, on capital punishment itself... I don't want to get into capital
punishment here, because it's not relevant. The point is: Almost everybody
believes there is *some* penalty that should be imposed on first-degree
murderers, whether it's capital punishment, life imprisonment, or something
else. My argument is that if someone believes abortion is murder, then he
or she must (to be consistent) call for that penalty - whatever it is -
to be applied to women and doctors.

    re: .121

    Before you dismiss this issue as absurd, you should be aware that a
    California woman was actually charged with negligent homocide(?) in
    relation to a miscarriage.  I believe she's accused of continuing
    to take drugs after she had been warned that the drugs could damage
    the fetus.  I haven't heard the outcome.  
    
    --bonnie

    re .123:
    
    Martin was, I thought, referring to any and all miscarriages. The
    case you cite is not exactly spontaneous, there is a question of
    actively doing harm.
    
    The absurdity was trying someone for defective sperm.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Re .122, I don't understand why you keep saying that only the woman
    who has the abortion and the doctor who performs it should be punished
    were abortion to be considered murder (the idea of which I consider
    ridiculous).  Why don't you think that the father of an aborted
    child should be punished also?  If a man does not step forward and
    offer to raise his unborn child should it be allowed to live, then
    why shouldn't he be punished as well?  I resent the fact that this
    discussion only involves punishing mothers and doctors.  
    
    It seems to me that many men have strongly expressed that they have
    just as much right to raise children as women do, and that fathers
    are just as important and just as much parents as mothers are.  So,
    then why shouldn't the father of an aborted fetus be held just as
    much to account as the mother?
    
    Or is it that fathers get to *choose* when they will be parents,
    but mothers are always parents.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .124 
    
    Saying the father's drug abuse damaged his sperm (possibly true,
    by the way) and caused the miscarriage doesn't sound any more
    absurd than trying the woman for the miscarriage.  It's not like
    doctors KNOW what causes most pregnancies to terminate, and while
    drug users have a higher rate of miscarriage than nonusers, that's
    as likely to be from poorer nutrition as it is from the drugs
    themselves. 
    
    I can see it now -- I followed my doctor's advice to keep up my
    exercise during my last pregnancy, and didn't really stop running
    to about the sixth month, when it got uncomfortable. A lot of
    doctors don't like this.  If I had had a miscarriage, would I be
    on trial for going against common medical advice, with different
    medical experts arguing the finer points of what happens most of
    the time?  
    
    --bonnie
    
    

    Re .127, I don't really think that women hold *all* the cards on
    the abortion decision.  It is true that if the woman wants an abortion,
    and the man wants the child, the mother can go ahead and get an
    abortion.  (After all, it is her body, and 9 mos. of pregnancy and
    childbirth is not exactly a picnic for every woman.)
    
    However, I believe there are many instances where the opinion of
    the father can strongly influence the decision on abortion.  For
    example, if the mother would like to have the baby, but the father
    wants her to have an abortion (because he doesn't love her, probably
    the most common reason or maybe he does, but is dead set against
    the responsibility of fatherhood), she may decide that abortion
    is a better choice for her than the poverty of single motherhood.
     In that case, it is *really*, in my opinion, the father of the
    unborn child who has really made the choice.
    
    I can invision myself in a scenario where birth control fails and
    I become pregnant by accident, I decide that even tho unplanned
    I will have the baby if the father will help me financially.  The
    father says that if I don't get an abortion, I'm on my own.  He
    doesn't want any more kids.  I realize that I can't afford to raise
    a child alone, and that giving her up for adoption would be
    heartbreaking, so I decide that, even tho it upsets me greatly,
    I will have an abortion.  Then, after having an abortion, I'm arrested
    and executed for committing murder, while the father of the baby
    is off screwing some cute young blonde!
    
    Lorna
    

Re: < Note 183.125 by APEHUB::STHILAIRE "Food, Shelter & Diamonds" >

>    Re .122, I don't understand why you keep saying that only the woman
>    who has the abortion and the doctor who performs it should be punished
>    were abortion to be considered murder (the idea of which I consider
>    ridiculous).  Why don't you think that the father of an aborted
>    child should be punished also?  If a man does not step forward and
>    offer to raise his unborn child should it be allowed to live, then
>    why shouldn't he be punished as well?  I resent the fact that this
>    discussion only involves punishing mothers and doctors.  
    
I hope it's clear to everyone that I do NOT favor punishing ANYONE involved
in abortion -- and I hold this belief only because I'm not willing to
embrace the premise that abortion is murder. 

If I did believe that abortion was murder, then I would in good conscience
have to advocate murder penalties for all who are guilty of the murder.
If the father actively participated in the "murder" (for example, drove her
to the abortion clinic), then he would deserve that penalty. However, the 
father would not become an active participant in the abortion act itself 
merely by having impregnated the woman. If he refuses to offer to help
raise the child or to pay child support, he would be subject to the same
laws and penalties of as a father who abandoned his infant child and that
child's mother -- again, this is all *if* abortion is murder and *if* the
fetus is accorded the same protection as a born child.

Do you somehow think I'm taking a position that's hostile to your own?
What I want to do here is get people to think, and to examine their
reasons for their beliefs. If you think it's "ridiculous" that abortion
could be considered murder, that's a valid belief -- it's just important
that you know *WHY* it's a valid belief.

    	RE:  several from Chuck Murray
    
    	You seem to be asking why we don't join you in suggesting/insisting
    	that women be given the death penalty for abortion (as a way
    	to force conservatives to see the inconsistencies in their viewpoint.)

    	Personally, I am very reluctant to do that because I don't think
    	it would prove a thing (or change the opinions) of people in
    	the so-called pro-life movement.
    
    	I think they would gladly see women put to death along with
    	their doctors for having an abortion.
    
    	As it is, there are already many who would have women continue
    	pregnancies that threaten the mothers' lives.  Clearly, the
    	message in the proposed abortion law changes is that women's
    	lives are considered to be of less intrinsic value than the lives 
    	of men and fetuses.  I'm afraid that if we suggest they put women 
    	to death for abortions, conservative factions would be only too happy
    	to oblige us.

    	RE:  .129
    
  	In regards to your question about why should men be held
    	responsible for the financial support of a child after not having
    	had a choice in whether or not the pregnancy was aborted...
    
    	Poor women (in general) are not the ones who go after the
    	fathers of their children by way of the courts.  (What poor
    	Mother who can barely keep herself and her child alive can afford
    	the lawyer's fees for such a court action?)
    
    	If the woman seeks government assistance, however, the welfare
    	system will INSIST that she provide the name of the father of
    	her child so that THEY can go after him for support.
    
    	The reason this is done is because (believe it or not :-)) there
    	are people in the world who would rather that their tax dollars
    	NOT be spent on supporting some kid while the man who sired
    	the child gets away free.
    
    	While we're on the subject, Bush has stated that while he is
    	*against* legalized abortion, he is very much in favor of enforcing
	child support (which means to me that for almost every fetus
    	that is saved from abortion, there will be a father somewhere
    	that will be required to pay for that child's support although
    	he had NO CHOICE in the decision NOT to abort that pregnancy.)
    
    	As Lorna (I think) mentioned, many abortions occur today because
    	the father says he will not help the mother if she goes through
    	with the pregnancy.  If the choice of abortion is taken away,
    	those men who *WOULD* have had a say in the decision (because
    	so many women freely GIVE the fathers that kind of power) will
    	lose it and will pay support whether the woman would have WANTED
    	an abortion or not.
    
    	It seems to me that men should be concerned about what these
    	proposed laws could do to MEN'S lives as well as women's.

    Re .133, agree.
    
    
    Lorna
    

    Um.  
    
    All right, I have to agree, if my belief in individual choice
    means anything . . . 
    
    --bonnie

    There are at least three terms in that sentence which could use
    further elaboration.
    
    						Ann B.

    This discussion is getting really carried away (has a way of happening
    when people are discussing abortion, which is why I don't normally
    get involved in discussions on the subject, or any other religious
    issue discussions - I don't like shouting matches much).  The original
    question asked in the presidential "debate" (joint press conference?
    whatever....I listened to the whole thing while I was doing other
    work around the house.) is one that I, as a Jewish woman (with no
    children) have nightmares about: what if a woman found out she was
    pregnant with a fetus with Tay-Sachs disease?  There is no cure
    for this genetic disease, nor is any researcher anywhere near close
    to one, and such children die a horrible death by the time they
    are four years old (usually much earlier).  The question put to
    Mr. Bush was, would he force a woman to go through with such a
    pregnancy when she already knew the outcome?  He begged the question
    and talked instead about diseases that a cure might be found for,
    etc. (what you would expect, given a question like that and his
    known stand on the question).  And I agree with what Mr. Dukakis
    said, which was basically that no one can rightfully take a decision
    like that away from the woman involved.
    
    (Maybe this isn't fair, but these discussions remind me of what Dawn
    (I think) said a long time ago: the men who have anti-abortion
    opionions believe that the potential life of the fetus is more valuable
    than the actual life of the owman because the fetus might turn out
    to be a MAN.)                       
    
    
    Climbing down off my soapbox..../Charlotte

    re: .139
    
    Charlotte, that's why I had to agree with the theoretical question
    posed in .133.   I started to amend and qualify it as Jody did,
    but in the end it boiled down to the simple fact that no one but
    the woman making the decision knows whether it's immoral or moral
    in this particular instance. 
    
    Choosing to give birth can be immoral, too -- you can be trying to
    get back at your mother, trying to manipulate your spouse into
    staying, longing for something you can control -- the options are
    endless. 
    
    --bonnie 

    	Before you flame in response to this, understand two things:
    1) I am a Pro-choicer and disagree strongly with many of the ideas
    and philosophies on Pro-Lifer's and many other conservatives.
    2) Something in my makeup COMPELS me to challenge really
    one-sided comments no matter which side of the argument they are
    on.
    
    	With that in mind, people, please watch the wholesale slams against
    conservatives and whether or not they will assist in dealing with the saved
    fetuses after birth.
     
    	In my experience, many right to lifers also contribute time
    and energy to homes for unwed mothers, programs for underprivileged
    children, even taking unwanted kids into their homes, etc.  Even
    Jerry Falwell, bane of my peace of mind and cause of much high
    blood pressure, finances with his "Liberty Foundation" (or whatever
    the heck he's calling it nowadays), a home for pregnant women as
    an alternative to abortion.  
    
    	Note that I am not claiming that all or even most RTL's do this,
    or that what they do is sufficient unto the need.  Please do recognize
    however that some are making an effort to deal morally and
    compassionately with the consequences of strongly held personal
    beliefs.  When you trivialize them and their beliefs, you automatically
    trivialize yourself and your beliefs as well.  (How can you expect
    them to respect you and your philospohy if you will not accord them
    the same?) 
    
    	So if you have some "objective" basis such as a comprehensive
    survey by an unbiased third party, please don't make
    generalizations about RTL's or conservatives like, "They'll save
    the fetus but them they won't deal with the child."  
    
    	As for my own beliefs, I don't know whether abortion is murder
    or not.  Because of this, I would not have an abortion myself. 
    But I also have trouble with the idea of imposing my belief system 
    on someone else (especially when I'm not sure of it myself).  SO
    I come down pro-choice.
    
    tlh
    	    

       The new pills they have in France will really make this debate
       difficult. They can abort a fertilized egg in the 1st month. I
       can see some arguments about more advanced fetuses but this 
       time frame gives us a mass of cells. A good many pregnancies end
       here naturally. Is this also "murder" to the anti-choice group?

       Another point to ponder, every American child born uses the
       resources that would keep dozens of 3rd world babies from dying.
       Is this murder? Those babies are just as much human souls as
       American babies and there is a direct relationship between our
       consumption and their poverty.

       Nestle' "murdered" hundreds of 3rd world babies by convincing
       their mothers that mother's milk was bad and baby formula good
       even though they couldn't afford it and didn't have the means to
       sterilize it. Nestle' even convinded the Drs to give the women
       pills to dry up their milk so they had no choice. I never saw any
       Nestle' executives tried for murder. I didn't see an
       "right-to-life" types (with the exception of Catholic nuns) try
       to stop this murder. liesl

    as 183.133 stands I cannot answer it....it has too many words
    that can be defined more than one way. I agree with Jody's
    rephrasing.
    
    Bonnie

    re: prev.
    
    whose words were they?  If those are the only words you have to
    offer, and I am not allowed to amend them, then please revoke
    my answer, as I feel the question is biased.
    
    -Jody
    

Re: .131
>        You seem to be asking why we don't join you in suggesting/insisting
>        that women be given the death penalty for abortion (as a way
>        to force conservatives to see the inconsistencies in their viewpoint.)

I hope nobody thinks that I an "suggesting/insisting" that anyone be given any
penalty in cases of abortion. I do, though, see value in forcing some
conservatives to confront the inconsistencies in their viewpoint.

>        Personally, I am very reluctant to do that because I don't think
>        it would prove a thing (or change the opinions) of people in
>        the so-called pro-life movement.
>
>        I think they would gladly see women put to death along with
>        their doctors for having an abortion.

Oh? Well then, why did George Bush rush to issue a "clarification" after
the first presidential debate insisting that he would impose no penalty
on a woman who had an abortion? (During the debate he fumbled, then said
he "hadn't sorted out" the issue of penalties.)  If Bush had said "I favor
capital punishment for premeditated abortions," his standing in the polls
wouldn't be up by 6 points or so (whatever the current figure is), but
down by 10-30 points!

But even if you don't confront the inconsistency in some conservatives'
stand on penalties, is that playing it safe? or rather taking the ostrich
approach (head in the sand) - allowing their views to gain public support.

Re .133 (the "informal poll"): The important issue isn't whether abortion
is "immoral" in this or that case, but whether it should be illegal.
And if it is simply an issue of "moralilty," on what do you base your
judgment of the morality of abortion?  That is, is abortion "immoral"
in certain cases because it's murder? or because it's "sinful"? or 
because it's "irresponsible"? or what?  If abortion is not murder, then
all other arguments for its "immorality" are merely issues of personal
preference -- like deciding whether smoking cigarettes or reading Penthouse
magazine or having premarital sex is "immoral."  These are interesting
moral questions, but not the basis for sound laws.

Re .139: There were two questions on abortion, one in each Bush-Dekakis 
debate. The one I mentioned earlier on penalties came in the first debate. The
one that you mention came in the second debate. ("Debate" used very loosely,
of course.)

    I agree with Bonnie and Jody - the question is too ill-phrased to allow
    a meaningful answer.
    
    As I see it, questions such as the one Marge asks imply that abortion
    is a clear-cut issue - a sharp line that you are either on one side
    of or the other.  Having been in downtown Boston yesterday where
    hundreds of anti-choice crusaders were shouting into megaphones
    and inciting others to cause trouble at women's clinics, I observe
    that it is the so-called right-to-lifers who most often believe
    that it is a simplistic issue with simplistic answers (theirs, of
    course).
    
    I have yet to encounter a pro-choice person who is emphatically
    FOR abortion (in that they would insist that a woman have an
    abortion even if she didn't want to.)  All I have seen are those
    who want to reserve the right to choose for the pregnant woman.
    I think Mike Dukakis expressed this eloquently in the debate the
    other night.
    
    I cannot answer Marge's question.  To do so would be to trivialize
    one of the most complex and murky issues that faces our world today.
    All I can do is echo Mike Dukakis' sentiments - it is each individual
    woman's choice to make, in accord with her own beliefs and convictions.
    And I will oppose any who desire to take that choice away.
    
    					Steve

    	RE:  .146
    
    	Chuck, I *do* understand what you are trying to do here (and
    	that we are essentially on the same side.)
    
    	All I'm trying to say is that I don't think that having pro-choice
    	people suggest the death penalty (for women who have abortions)
    	is an effective argument to get the so-called pro-lifers to
    	realize the inconsistencies of their stand.
    
   	I've seen other such attempts at refuting pro-life logic (such
    	as questioning why an innocent fetus conceived in a rape or
    	from incest is less deserving of being saved than a fetus conceived
	when the Mother fully consented to sex.)  The result of that
    	attempt is that many conservatives are now saying that abortion
    	should be illegal whether the woman was raped, the victim of
    	incest, or whether the pregnancy endangers her life.
    
    	I would rather not suggest the death penalty for women and have
    	conservatives take me up on it as a way to preserve their own
    	sense of consistency.  I would ALSO rather not challenge others 
    	with a position that I do *not* hold myself.  It strikes me as the
    	kind of "bluff" that one might try in a game like poker.  I'm
    	not willing to play that sort of game with this issue because
    	I believe the stakes are too high.

    	As for your "head in the sand" comment, please spare me.  In
    	the present context, the act of stating my beliefs in the way *I*
    	choose to state them rather than employing the tactics *you* have
    	suggested in no way constitutes the difference between changing
    	the direction of conservative thinking and putting my head in
    	the sand.  Either way, I'm contributing to the 1's and 0's on
    	a disk that belongs to RAINBO/MOSIAC (no more, no less.)  
    
    	I'll state my views the way *I* want to state them, thanks anyway.

    	RE:  .148  Steve Lionel
    
    	Very well stated!  Agree with your position completely.
    

Re: < Note 183.149 by NEXUS::CONLON >

You are indeed contributing to the 1's and 0's on the disk, and
quite eloquently.  I do see your point, though we differ on the
most effective approach to raising the issue.  Thanks for your reply.

    What the heck:  I agree completely and unequivocally with the statement
    as given.  I don't think that the fetus is a "person" in the ethical
    sense and therefore there is nothing immoral about aborting it during
    any of the trimesters, assuming that no pain is inflicted.
    
    I fail to see how the statement is ill-phrased.  I kinda like it
    if for no other reason than it forces people to come to grips with
    the basic question.  If you think that it is immoral under *any*
    circumstances, then you probably should find it immoral under *all*
    circumstances.  Why would it be immoral if the fetus were not a
    person?  If it is a person then how can you weigh the "value"
    of one person over another?

    My problem with the statement is in the word "morality".
    As a pro-choice advocate I don't think I or anyone else
    have the right to decide what is or isn't "moral" for
    someone else.  Otherwise I agree with the statement.
    
    Nanci

    re .152:
    
    > There are a couple of trends in science which will affect this
    > issue.  One is the ability to keep a fetus alive outside the womb
    > at younger and younger ages.  Presumably, the logical end of this
    > trend is that someday in the future, science will be able to sustain
    > human existence from the moment the egg is fertilized.  
      
    I think that this is an unwarranted conclusions. I think it unwise
    to make such a simple extrapolation on such a complex process as
    the creation of a human organism. It may well be that the chemical
    interaction between the developing fetus and the mother is so complex
    that it cannot be duplicated by anything other than a human.
    
    By the same logic, extrapolating the advances in speed that have
    occurred in the past century, we should be able to travel faster
    than light in a few decades.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re .157:
    
    > I wonder how many men would suddenly favor abortion as a choice
    > if 50% of all preganancies resulted in the man being left with the
    > risk of childbirth and responsibility of the child.
      
    Probably the same as the number of women who currently favor choice.
    
    It seems to me however that you are making the assumption that it
    is generally men who are against abortion and women who are "for"
    it. Is this in fact the case?
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

       I believe Steve's question about what we will do if the egg can
       be kept alive outside the body is significant. Look how we deny
       death to the elderly and terminally ill now that we can force
       them to live. No, live is the wrong word, exist would be more
       like it.
       
       Is our fear of death so deep that we can't even allow death for
       those who want it? No wonder the abortion issue is so sensitive.
       It touches that fear of the one thing we truely have no choice
       over, even the rich and powerful must die.

       A while back someone raised the idea (taken from the anti-choice
       crowd) about what if Bethoven's mother had had an abortion. I
       counter with what if Hitler's mother had? That unwanted child was
       one of the greatest murderers of all time. liesl
       

  Whew! has this topic taken off!!
    
    Several opinions, if I may...
    
    	- Raising the question of "What if men got pregnant" is irrelevant
    	  as they can not and will not.  It open no doors to understanding
    	  to 'suppose' a person into a position which the CAN NOT, in
    	  reality, be in.  It's a cheap way to make two points in an
    	  argument that is not scored on points.
    
    	- I do not beleive in abortion.
    
    	- I do not beleive that I would 'refuse' or 'condem' an abortion
    	  under certain circumstance, though I would maintain that I
    	  was wrong the whole time.
    
    	- My 'circumstances', mentioned above are irrelevant to this
    	  discussion.
    
    
    re: .125 Lorna
    
    Your argument, or concern, as to weather, if abortion were murder,
    the father would also be charged seems to *scream* that the father
    should hold "EQUAL" responsibility in these results.  I have seen
    several people comment on the same thing when discussing the subject
    of penalty, should abortion be labled a criminal offense.  Do I
    take it that this is an unbiased equality for the responsibility
    and "rights" of the mother *and* father in the subject of abortion?
     Meaning that should abortion *NOT* be labled a criminal offense
    then fathers would have "EQUAL" say as to weather or not an abortion
    is performed?  Or is your comment biased in the manner of "If I
    suffer I want *him* to suffer" and "If it's what I want I don't
    want *him* to be able to interfere"?
    
    Just curious.
    jim
    

       re .133: 
           
           "There is nothing immoral about abortion when it
           contributes to a woman's well-being." 

       ( )  I agree
       
       ( )  I disagree
       
       (X)  I just don't know.  However, if it's immoral, that in
            itself isn't sufficient to make it illegal.  
       
       --Mr Topaz
       
       p.s.:  I believe that the choice is best left to the individual;
       however, I think that one aspect of the anti-abortionists'
       position is being misstated here by Lorna and others: the
       anti-choice people don't insist that you raise the child, only
       that you bear the child. 

    Re Mr Topaz, but, so what, somebody has to raise the child.  Whether
    anti-abortionists insist the mother does it or not is irrelevant
    to me.  The point is *somebody* has to.  And if the mother is not
    going to, who is?  Maybe a nice yuppy family who can't have kids
    of their own.  But, that can't even be counted upon.  (And some
    women cannot, after hearing the heartbreaking stories of other birth
    mothers, in good conscience give up their own child once it's born.)
     I, also, happen to think the world is over-populated as it is,
    without adding more poor, unwanted, and perhaps handicapped children
    to the picture.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .161, re .125, my argument that if abortion were to be considered
    murder, that the father as well as the mother should be held
    responsible is based upon my own feelings and past experiences.
     Although, I obviously am willing to argue in favor of keeping abortion
    legal, and although I do not consider a fetus to be a human being,
    I myself would find it extremely difficult to have an abortion.
     The thought of killing my own potential child would be heartbreaking
    for me, even though I don't consider it murder, and defend others
    rights to do so.  What I'm saying is that if birth control failed,
    and I ever got pregnant again, I would not really want to have an
    abortion.  Yet, realistically, there is no way that I could afford
    to raise a child on my own.  Both of the men whom I have been
    involved with in the 3 1/2 yrs. since my divorce made it pretty
    obvious to me that if I were to get pregnant by accident, that they
    would really *expect* me to get an abortion, and that, if I chose
    not to, well, the message was, don't count on them.  In fairness
    to them, they are both divorced men who already have children to
    support, and feel that there's absolutely no way they could afford
    another.  But, were it to happen,  I would feel that I was forced
    to get an abortion because the father of the child refused to help
    me if I didn't, and it would great upset me to say the least.
    
    I don't think I can be the only woman who has ever found herself
    in this situation in a relationship.  I think that many women have
    abortions because the father of the child strongly influences the
    decision.  Therefore, the father should be held equally responsible.
    
    I think that if a woman has an abortion because the father won't
    help her raise the child that he should be held equally accountable.
     However, if a woman who is pregnant wants an abortion, then she
    should be allowed to have it, even if the father wants the child.
     This is because there is no getting around the fact that it is
    the woman's body.  She is the one who has to be pregnant for 9 months,
    and give birth.  This can involve great physical pain, and even
    death, and nobody has a right to force this on another person.
    
    I don't think the two cases are the same.
    
    Lorna
      

Re: Chuck's suggestion on penalties for abortion.

    When suggesting  things  like  this,  kindly remember that "Kill a
    Commie for Christ" started as a satire by the anti-war groups, and
    was then adopted as a serious call by the pro-war groups. It seems
    that at least some of the American electorate can be pretty thick.

--David

(For the young, the war I refer to was the Vietnam war.)

    Reply .154 asks the question: 
    
>    If it is a person then how can you weigh the "value"
>    of one person over another?

    Like this, apparently:  
    
>        
>Note 218.84           Questions on the use of lethal force              84 of 85
>AERIE::THOMPSON "tryin' real hard to adjust..."      12 lines  18-OCT-1988 09:52
>                    -< Not_ALL_Lives_Are_of_Equal_Value ! >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>	re: .82		-< life worth more than property >-
>    
>>   "this heartless judgemental attitude of yours drives me up the wall."
>
>    Obviously it is time we realized we don't all agree that any human
>    life in the abstract has much relative value ...  Some human lives
>    might be worth the effort to salvage in a criminal situation ...
>
>    But for most members of the criminal group you better have your lawyer
>    and a bullet-proof vest if you invade the average armed American home!
>
>    ~--e--~  Eagles_Value_the_Average_Criminal_Animal's_Life_as_Worth-LESS

    I gather that one has the right to live only when one is living
    one's life in a way that earns the approval of the people with
    houses and guns, or if in the opinion of those people you will
    grow up to be their kind of person.
    
    --bonnie

Re: < Note 183.165 by ULTRA::WITTENBERG "Secure Systems for Insecure People" >
>                           -< Satire is too subtle >-
>
>Re: Chuck's suggestion on penalties for abortion.
>
>    When suggesting  things  like  this,  kindly remember that "Kill a
>    Commie for Christ" started as a satire by the anti-war groups, and
>    was then adopted as a serious call by the pro-war groups. It seems
>    that at least some of the American electorate can be pretty thick.

I certainly agree with you that much of the electorate can indeed be 
"thick."   However, I wasn't being "satirical" -- rather, was trying
to cut through the rhetoric to a very stark implication of the "abortion
is murder" view. I believe that if people look at it that way, the
overwhelming majority (of all sexes, religions, and political party
affiliations) would reject capital punishment or life imprisonment
in cases of abortion.  And the issue of penalties is bound to come
up sooner or later anyway, so why not confront it now?

If I were to try my hand at satire, I'd use as my inspiration something like
Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" -- or, to use a Vietnam-era example,
the song "Feel Like I'm Fixin' to Die" by Country Joe and the Fish
(which was about as subtle as a sledge hammer).

Incidentally, I had never heard of "Kill a Commie for Christ." I laughed
when I read it -- now, that's satire. I'm sure, though, that there were
indeed some dolts who took it literally. And probably some who felt,
after reading Swift's "A Modest Proposal," that he was a cannibalistic
fiend, or that Irish babies would make tasty snacks.

    My sister once gave me a pen with the legend

	NUKE UNBORN GAY WHALES

    which might be heavy-handed enough never to be taken seriously...

re:  on penalties for abortion-as-murder

    While I agree with your point of view, find it eminently
    reasonable and a logical extrapolation of abortion-as-murder, I
    firmly believe that one cannot change (most) people's beliefs by
    arguing logically.  Unfortunately, I don't know any other way to
    argue; how does one change another's belief system?  Or one's own? 

    -- Linda

    I disagree.
    
    I believe everyone should have a chance at life, even if it is only
    to die.
    
    Ken

"Kill a Commie for Christ" is, I believe, from the Jack Burns and Avery Fisher
comedy album.  (Very offbeat 1960's Second City humor).

Martin.

    re .133:
    
        	Please read the following statement and say whether you agree
    or disagree:
    
    
    		"There is nothing immoral about enslaving a woman for
    9 months when it contributes to an embryo's well-being."


                                               

    Marge,
    
    You in no way indicated that *your* opinion was a necessary
    adjunct to the quote which we were asked to agree or disagree
    with.
    
    Is it?
    
    						Ann B.

    A woman can only be a slave if she acquiesces to her slavery.
    
    Val

    re .172, How about this, agree or disagree:
    
    "There is nothing immoral about ruining a woman's life if it
    contributes to the well-being of an embryo."
    
    (Let's see.  Does this woman deserve to have her life ruined?  Well
    she *did* willfully consent to having sex.  She should have realized
    it could ruin her life!  Yes!  Yes!  Let's ruin her life!  *I*
    certainly have the right to make that descision.)
    
    As to whether a man can make a woman a slave, it's very convenient
    to say that nobody can be made a slave who doesn't want to be. 
    But, I don't think it's always that simple.  What if the woman started
    having kids when she was too young to get a good education, what
    if she really isn't smart enough to go back to college and get a
    degree, what if she has no skills, no money and can't get a good
    paying job?  What if she has no relatives to take her in, what if
    she's afraid to just walk out of the house with no money, no job,
    no car, not knowing where she's going to sleep that night?  What
    if the man is bigger than her, smarter than her, and has money?
     Then, she needs help and kindness and understanding to get out
    of the situation.  She doesn't need somebody smugly telling her
    that it's her fault and that if she really didn't want to be a slave
    to her husband she wouldn't be.
    
    Re Marge, if I willfully consent to have sex with somebody and then
    get pregnant.  Then, I would like the freedom to willfully have
    an abortion if I don't want the baby.  The medical technology is
    available and people should not be kept from it's benefit.  Human
    beings were given intelligence to help make their lives better.
     I just don't buy that old, "You made your bed now sleep in it"
    routine, if the knowledge exists to make the punishment unnecessary.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .179
    
    Lorna, 
    
    The woman you hypothetically describe is my neighbor! She lacks
    a high school diploma, she cannot drive a car or write a check.
    Her reading skills are about 6th grade level at best. She is pregnant
    now for the 6th time and she is not yet 30. They have 6 children,
    the oldest is in third grade and the youngest twins are 2. Her husband
    controls all the money and makes all the decisions for the family.
    
    Bonnie

    My mother could easily fit this portrait.  She does not have [and
    never did have] any marketable skills to take care of herself;
    she's an only child whose parents died when we children were quite
    young.  The only difference is that she picked a husband who is
    not abusive and who had the good sense not to die young, so she
    never needed to face the decision and agony of supporting two
    young kids in a depressed area. 
   
    Does she get some kind of moral brownie points for getting lucky?
    If my father had been killed the time the engine hoist broke and
    the block of a White Diesel fell [he got away with a broken toe
    and a good scare], would widowhood be a consequence of her
    decision to marry him?  Would that mean she shouldn't get any help
    or sympathy for the burden she would have had to bear?   If he had
    turned to alcohol when he lost his job, would that have been her
    fault? Or would that have been a life accident, too?  How much is
    she responsible for his behavior? 
    
    It's easy for those of us who are not in abusive relationships to
    say that the woman who is abused is allowing herself to be
    enslaved and could just leave.  It's easy for those of us who are
    not facing an unwelcome pregnancy to say that the woman who
    decides to abort it is not facing the consequences of having
    chosen sex.  It's not so easy when you're in the real world trying
    to deal with the subtleties and complexities of real life. 

    --bonnie

    Re .182, Marge, if a woman wants a baby, and can afford the baby,
    then pregnancy and motherhood are not punishment.  (Well, I could
    debate the pregnancy part even if you want the child!  It can be
    very uncomfortable and *punishing*!)  I certainly do not consider
    being a mother to my daughter punishment.  On the contrary, it's
    one of the best parts of my life.
    
    But, the point is, Marge, if a woman doesn't want a baby, can't
    afford one, if having a baby will drastically mess up her plans
    for the future, then, *yes*, being pregnant, and having a baby is
    a punishment.
    
    I think what we disagree on is that there is a big difference between
    getting what you *want*, and getting something you *don't* want.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .181, .182, what I also would like to say is that when you have
    a husband who loves you, a nice place to live, enough money, and
    both want a child, and you can stay home and take care of your baby,
    then it is a wonderful experience.  (It was for me!  I wouldn't
    trade that time in my life for anything.)  There is nothing more
    precious than a baby, when you wanted one, and your life is in order.
     Then, you can really appreciate the wonder of the experience.
    
    But, if you are living alone, in poverty, trying to take care of
    a baby - in a horrible tenement in a slum area, and you can't afford
    anything nice for yourself or the baby, and you can't afford a baby
    sitter because you are young, lonely and want to date, then you're
    experience is not going to be filled with wonder.  It's going to
    be filled with resentment and it will be a punishment.  I had
    girlfriends in this situation and it was nothing like my own
    experience.  There is nothing satisfying about poverty and kids that
    are such a burden that the wonder has long been forgotten.

    I believe children should only be brought into situations where
    they are truly wanted.  Only a few people born into poverty ever
    rise out of it.  Too many people have suffered because of being
    born into poverty to parents who didn't really want them.  Just
    being born isn't enough.  People deserve to have a certain level
    of quality to their lives, too.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .186
    
    Adoption certainly is an option, however, that isn't such a nice,
    neat simple choice either.  See notes 166 on adoption.
    
    I think the adoption discussion in this particular note came up
    about 100 replies ago.  
    
    The point I made then was that for a woman to carry a child to full
    term and then terminate all parental rights through adoption is
    also a VERY traumatic decision.  I can't say whether it is more
    or less traumatic than abortion, but none of the options are swell
    for women in they don't want a child.
    
    It seems that the points you raise, Marge, seem to put 100%
    responsibility on women because they are the ones with the uterus
    and capability of carrying a child.  Women don't just spontaneously
    become pregnant, at least not that I've ever heard, yet as a society,
    when push comes to shove, and when daddy doesn't come through with
    child support or won't ackowledge paternity, etc., etc., who's
    shoulders does the responsibility fall on.
    
    And just look at the double standards regarding abandoning a child.
    If a man abandons his child, society says, well, boys will be boys,
    after all HE didn't bring this child into the world, the woman did.
    But if a woman abandons a child, society says, my God, this woman
    is vile and the scum of the earth.  How could any woman abandon
    a child.
    
    I think that no woman feels that abortion is 'good', and I for one
    could not go through with an abortion, on the other hand, I couldn't
    relinquish a child either, but I still think that given the fact
    that any way we look at it it's a set up for women, we need to always
    ensure that every woman has a choice about what happens to her body.
    

    p.s.  Perhaps if we, as a society, had a more humane approach to
          adoption, more women would be able to consider adoption.
    
          Closed adoptions, in my opinion, increase the numbers of women
          who choose abortion over adoption.  In a closed adoption system,
          the child is, in effect, dead by virtue of being totally
          inaccessible to the woman who gave birth to the baby.
           
          Open adoption is clearly the humane way to go.
    
          If parents can love more than one child, why can't we credit
          children for being able to love more than one set of parents?
    
          This is one adoptee's opinion.
    

< Note 183.184 by NOVA::M_DAVIS "Eat dessert first;life is uncertain." >


<    Lorna, I would agree that under the circumstances you describe,
<    that motherhood is a challenge.  I do not consider it punishment,
<    i.e., a penalty imposed for wrongdoing.
<    
<    Marge
    

       I've certainly heard interpretations of the Bible that believe
       pregnancy is a "punishment" of all women because of what Eve did.
       I also think a portion of our society looks at pregnancy as what
       a woman "deserves" if she engages in sex.

       I don't like the idea of abortion (I'm one of the one's who
       couldn't have kids and it makes me sad sometimes, but not always)
       but if I were to get pregnant today, no matter how much I might
       want a child, I would abort it if it had Down's syndrome which is
       likely for a first child in one my age. I couldn't bring a child
       like that into the world without regret and it should be my
       choice to make that decision. liesl

    	RE:  Marge
    
    	In regards to thinking of forcing a woman to go through an unwanted
    	pregnancy as slavery...
    
    	What do you suppose public reaction would be if our government
    	announced that *any person* (male or female) known to engage
    	in sex (by choice) COULD be forced to endure a form of physical
    	punishment consisting of the following: 

    	    1.  Forced nausea (and vomiting) every morning for a period
    		of months.
    	    2.  Swollen and painful breasts.
    	    3.  Seemingly endless fatigue.
    	    4.  The forced gain of 20-50 pounds (much in the form of
    	        water-weight which could make the man or woman's ankles
    	        swell, making it painful to walk.)  The rest would be
    	        in the form of a lead weight attached to the man or
    		woman's abdomen which s/he would NEVER be allowed to take off
    		until the punishment was deemed over.
    	    5.  Nine months later, the man or woman would be subjected to
    		the worst pain of his/her entire life every three minutes
    		for 16-36 hours (depending on the whim of the government.
    		After the pain was over, the man or woman would have more 
    		swelling in the breast area and would take a period of
    		weeks to recover from the whole ordeal.
    
    	Mind you, I've only brought up the physical part of a forced
    	pregnancy.  The emotional part is much more traumatic (and the
    	effects can last a lifetime, whichever of the remaining choices
    	a woman picks after her initial choice is denied her and she
    	is FORCED into a kind of bodily slavery that our current society
    	would never DREAM to inflict on both sexes for ANY REASON, much
    	less for simply having been willing to engage in sex.)

    	Marge, pregnancy and Motherhood are beautiful wondrous experiences
    	for those women who CHOOSE to go through with a pregnancy. 
    	You can't seem to comprehend the idea that pregnancies that
    	are engaged in willingly and pregnancies forced against a woman's
    	will are completely different experiences!  Let me know if you
    	still don't understand that, and Lorna and I will repeat it
    	a few more times if the message still isn't coming through. 
    	
    	The pain of pregnancy can be almost unbearable, and the risk of 
    	death at any time is VERY REAL (but *if you choose* to start or continue
    	a pregnancy, the pain and the risk can be VERY worth it.)  *If*
    	you choose to be willing to take the pain and the risk...(which
  	is not the same thing as suffering through it because someone
    	else thinks you should because you agreed to have sex and got
    	pregnant for reasons beyond your control.)
    
    	Having sex is *not* a choice to be pregnant.  It is a choice
    	to have sex (and it honestly *is* sometimes beyond our control.)
    	Just because *you* consider any act of a WOMAN (not a man) as
    	the choice to become pregnant, it doesn't mean that others should
    	(or that you should be allowed to interpret another woman's
    	choice to have sex as a choice -- in *your* belief system -- to 
    	become pregnant.)
    
    	If you think that a forced pregnancy should be the consequence
    	of any woman who chooses to have sex, then I think that we should
    	also be able to inflict the PAIN and TRAUMA of pregnancy on
    	any person in this society (by means of some kind of lottery.)

    	As someone else implied, why should women be the only people subject
    	to that kind of experience merely because some possess uteruses
    	that are able to become impregnated?

    	Would you be willing to sustain that kind of pain on someone
    	else's arbitrary decision about what YOU should have to live
    	through as the result of some *other* kind of circumstance that
    	is beyond your control (such as an involuntary lottery as the
    	price for wanting to engage in sex as a private act?)
    
    	Rather than force women to go through pregnancies against their
    	wills, let's just put ALL people who have sex into a lottery
    	that will give the winners the PAIN of pregnancy without the
    	emotional trauma (and we'll draw the winners every ten minutes
    	or so, twenty-four hours per day.)  
    
    	Arbitrarily subjecting all people (including men) to the physical 
    	pain involved with pregnancy on a lottery basis would be *far*
    	more humane than forcing women to suffer both physical *and*
    	emotional trauma against their wills (expecting those women
    	to face possible death just because *you* think they ought to
    	go through it for having agreed to engage in sex.)
    
    	Physical and emotional trauma are subjective experiences, Marge.
    	You cannot decide for some other person what would (or would
    	NOT) be regarded as punishment.  You can only decide that for
    	yourself.
    
    	If you don't think that an unwanted pregnancy that is forced
    	on a woman would be a punishment, then it wouldn't be for you.
    	You can't possibly make that decision for someone else.
    
    	So how about if you decide what is to be done with *your* body,
    	and let others decide what to do with theirs?  Simple?

    And now, back to our original question - still in progress, I hope...
    
    Being pro-choice, I have to agree with the original question.

    
    -Dotti.

    re .173:
    
    My question was simply meant as a comment on the sloppy wording
    of the question you entered. Both use loaded words that can easily
    be misinterpreted. 
    
    as for my use of the word "enslave", I think that whenever one is
    deprived of the ability to choose for themselves, they are effectively
    enslaved.                      
    
    as for "pregnancy as punishment", that is in fact what it is being
    reduced to by the argument "If you have sex you'd better be prepared
    to live with the consequenses". I cannot equate choosing to have sex 
    with choosing to give birth. 
    
    I would hope that anyone engaging in sex would consider the possible
    consequences and be prepared for or against them, but I think that
    it is not immoral to make the decision (of whether to give birth)
    upon learning of being pregnant. 
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    	RE:  .192
    
    	Marge, for some women, it would take sterilization (that occured
    	prior to their first sexual experience) to successfully avoid
    	pregnancy.
    
    	Birth control devices are not 100% effective.  Any fertile woman
    	who engages in sex risks pregnancy every single time she has
    	sex (no matter *what* kind of birth control she is using.)
    
    	That is reality!
    
    	You make no distinction whatsoever between women who do everything
    	humanly possible to avoid pregnancy and those who do nothing.
    	For you, it appears to be a black and white decision:  If a
    	woman says yes to sex, she is also saying yes to pregnancy (no
    	matter what it does to her life or to the lives of children
    	she already has.)  
    
    	The only choice you give women is "say no to sex."  For some
    	women, saying no to sex (as your only fully-approved form of
    	birth control) will cause her to lose her marriage (and possibly
    	the support of her children.)  
    
    	When you cool off after 24 hours, I would like to see you address
    	the morality of denying living children their fathers (and possibly
    	all financial support from them) by asking women to say NO to
    	sex to avoid having more children that neither parent can afford
    	to support (because people can easily be divorced for refusing
    	to have sex with their marriage partners.)
    
    	Also, I'd like to know why you make no distinction at all between
    	getting pregnant for reasons beyond a woman's control and getting
    	pregnant for not taking precautions (or for simply making a
    	mistake.)  If it all boils down to the idea that ANY woman who
    	has sex should be subjected to the same physical consequences
    	(no matter what she did to prevent pregnancy,) then why should
    	only WOMEN be subject to that kind of physical pain for something
    	that is not our fault?  Why not find a way for ALL people to
    	feel the pain if they engage in sex willingly) whether they
   	have fertile uteruses or not?

	When a woman has sex, a potential consequence of that action
	is a pregnancy. When a woman makes a deliberate decision to
	engage in activity with a predictable consequence, I find it
	ridiculous for that woman to later complain that she "has
	no control over her body". She had control, and she exercised it.
	Later, when she becomes pregnant, she wants to change the rules.
	Unfortunately, at that point, there is another life to consider,
	and while pregnancy my be unpleasant to the woman involved, and
	is potentially fatal, I must point out that abortion is 100% fatal
	to the unborn child. Speaking as a former unborn child, I don't
	want anyone interfering with that child's rights, or ability to
	exercise control over his or her body.

					Tom_K

    Marge,
    
    I am having trouble following your reasoning.
    
    In .60, you said:
    
    "My objections to abortion are not based on the standard argument
    of 'it's taking a life'...My argument is consistent in that those
    individuals...who willingly have sex which can result in conception
    ought not to have the option to abort."
             
    That sounds very much to me as though you feel that abortion should
    be disallowed not because ending the life of a fetus is wrong, but 
    because women who have sex and get "caught" should be punished.  
    (And _that_ implies that they are doing something _wrong_.)  Your
    exception for women "who don't know any better" seems to support
    this.     
                                                           
    Now, I know you refuse to call it punishment.  But isn't that what
    it is when you force someone to accept _one_ of the possible
    outcomes--the one of your choosing--against her will?  
                                                    
    IF we ignore the question of whether ending the fetus' life is morally 
    okay (and it sounds as though this is not affecting your opinion), how 
    is the above scenario different from one in which the same woman
    happens not to get pregnant but to contract a venereal disease?
    Assuming she doesn't want the disease, would you forbid her to have
    medication that could stop the disease because she has to accept
    the consequences of her action (i.e., sex)?     
                                                    
    In short, Marge, I'm saying that I don't understand why you're opposed
    to abortion.  The only arguments I've seen offered are that:            
                                                             
    	1)  The fetus is a human life and therefore it is immoral to
    	     	end it;                             
                                                    
    	2)  That a woman who has sex resulting in an unwanted pregnancy
    		should be punished.
    
    Maybe there is another "grounds" for opposing abortion.  Can you
    clarify your position?  Thanks,
 
          
    -Tracy
                   
                                                  
                                                  
                                                  
               
               
               
               

    	RE:  .197
    
    	Do you drive a car to work?  Imagine a situation where you are on
    	your way to work and find that the roads to your office are
    	closed (for some reason beyond your control.)  
    
    	Do you think that Digital should fire you for not arriving to
    	work on time (or not at all) because the roads are closed?
    
    	Hey, *YOU* took the chance of having that happen when you chose
   	to live in a house that is not on the grounds at Digital.
    	Therefore, *YOU* took the risk of not being able to go to work if
    	they closed the roads to your office (so I think it would be
    	*ridiculous* of you to CLAIM that you had no control over not
    	being able to get to work on time, or not at all, in that 
    	situation.)
    
    	The next time the roads are closed (or there is any delay in
    	your commute that is beyond your control,) if I follow your
    	argument in .197, then you deserve to be fired.

    <--(.199)
    
    um, actually Suzanne, people in WC2 jobs face loss of pay in just
    that circumstance.  It's probably not the norm to enforce it at
    DEC (or at least not in the office) but the potential is indeed
    there.
    
    [ Notes> SET MOD ]
    
    Could I ask people to refrain from "stacking things up" for Marge to
    answer when she rejoins the discussion?  It's a bit unfair to load her
    down as could easily happen, especially at the ca. 5:1 odds she's
    facing on this issue.  Thanks. 
    
    						=maggie

re .199

	Your analogy has many flaws, but I'll work with it.

>    	Do you drive a car to work?

	Usually. Sometimes I ride my bike. Occasionally I walk.

>	Imagine a situation where you are on your way to work and find 
>	that the roads to your office are closed (for some reason beyond 
>	your control.)  

	No sweat, I'll cut through the woods, [Like I said, your analogy is 
	flawed :-)] like I did last time I walked to work.
    
>    	Do you think that Digital should fire you for not arriving to
>    	work on time (or not at all) because the roads are closed?

	If my agreement with DIGITAL provided that 100% attendance, at
	specific times, was a condition of employment, then they would
	have that right. They might or might not choose to exercise it.
	In any event those conditions of employment are not in effect,
	it is highly unlikely I would accept employment under such 
	circumstances.
    
>    	Hey, *YOU* took the chance of having that happen when you chose
>   	to live in a house that is not on the grounds at Digital.
>    	Therefore, *YOU* took the risk of not being able to go to work if
>    	they closed the roads to your office (so I think it would be
>    	*ridiculous* of you to CLAIM that you had no control over not
>    	being able to get to work on time, or not at all, in that 
>    	situation.)

	If I accepted such a situation you would be correct. As pointed
	out earlier, the probability of my putting myself in such a position
	is very low.
    
>    	The next time the roads are closed (or there is any delay in
>    	your commute that is beyond your control,) if I follow your
>    	argument in .197, then you deserve to be fired.

	If I accepted the provisions stated, I certainly would. Such,
	fortunately for me, is not the case.

	Now, would someone kindly explain to me what this exercise has
	to do with the topic at hand?

							Tom_K

    re: .201
    
    The difference between the jobs situation (and I know a woman who
    lost her job for just exactly that, even though attendance was not
    a specific condition of her hiring) and the pregnancy one is that
    a person normally has many choices of job and can find one that
    meets his or her standards, while a woman, according to this
    argument, has only three:  no sex, sex without intercourse, or
    total and unique responsibility for carrying a pregnancy to term. 
    
    She apparently does not have the choice of finding a relationship
    with a man who agrees with her view of sex, which would seem to be
    analogous to choosing a job with conditions you like. It sounds
    like you're saying that even if the father and mother both agree
    that abortion is the best idea, they should be forced to carry the
    pregnancy to term. 
    
    --bonnie 

    	RE:  .201
    
    	Tom, let's say they moved your office ten miles away (and
    	closed the road to your office one day, prohibiting you from
    	getting to work.)  All the other people in your group made
    	it to work (because they 1) lived in another direction from
    	the office, 2) typically sleep in their cubicles, 3) broke
    	the law by driving on the closed road *anyway* in spite of
    	its being closed.)  You were the only one who couldn't get
    	into the office, so you are fired.
    
    	Your excuse about not being able to sell your house to move
    	closer to Digital doesn't wash.  Your argument about having
    	no control over the closing of the road is dismissed (along
    	with you.)
    
    	You say that you would never accept employment under those
    	conditions (yet you are suggesting that women be forced to
    	accept SEX on the basis of being punished/penalized for
    	occurances that are beyond the control of women, such as
    	failure of the birth control manufacturers to make products
    	that are 100% effective.)
    
    	Hey, you don't have to work.  You could live under a bridge
    	with your family and eat garbage.  If you DO chose to work,
    	you accept certain risks (one of which being that they could
    	fire you for reasons beyond your control, such as the one
    	I brought up.)
    
    	Women don't need to have sex, but just as you might not care
    	for living with your family under a bridge, many women would
    	rather not live without sex.  So, therefore, we want a culture
    	that allows women to have sex without penalizing us for occurances
    	which are beyond our control (such as birth control manufacturers
    	ineptness when it comes to inventing a form of B.C. which is
    	100% effective without causing sterilization.)
    
    	The idea is that it is hardly *just* to force penalties on
    	people when they merely took ordinary, everyday risks (such
    	as a natural act like sex or driving to work) when they did
    	nothing wrong to deserve the penalty and took no worse risks
    	than millions of other people who were NOT forced to suffer
    	the same penalty.
    
    	To me, that sounds like a "Russian Roulette" form of justice
    	(and unless you can show me a way to spread the same exact
    	physical risk for the same act to ALL people, then I think
    	that it is unfair to expect women to suffer a physical penalty
    	for an act like sex on such capricious grounds as merely having
    	uteruses that are capable of becoming impregnated.)

    
    Even if the couple/woman is responsible and uses B.C. religiously
    but a pregnancy results anyway the woman should have to carry it
    to term?  I can see a number of realistic problems with this.
    
    We hear so much about the cost associated with doctors bills etc.
    resulting from a pregnancy: who should bear the cost of this if the
    woman can't?  How do you deal with the fact that some poorer women
    might not eat right and thus not take in enough nutrition for the baby,
    thus hurting themselves and the fetus?  I assume that those people
    who disagree with abortion would be willing to pick up these costs.
    
    Here's another scenario: poor, single mother with three children
    who has to work full time in order to help pay the bills.  She gets
    pregnant but within a few weeks after telling her husband, he is
    killed in a car accident.  No life insurance.  Complications arise
    which prevent her from going to work.  Boss fires mother, so now
    she has no health insurance.  Now the pregnancy is affecting not
    only the mother and fetus, but also the other children.    Afterall,
    she can't get another job so not a lot of money is coming in.
    
    As has been mentioned, the Republicans who are so opposed
    to abortion are the same people who disagree in practice with helping
    pregnant women and their families and with working to make sure that
    businesses can't discriminate against pregnant women.  Afterall,
    that's government intervention and we can't have that.

       re .200:
       
       > It's a bit unfair to [stack things up against Marge] as could
       > easily happen, especially at the ca. 5:1 odds she's facing on this
       > issue. 
       
       Although it may be unfair, does one not expect that Marge would
       have been ready for the consequences that might result from her
       consensually writing her notes in this topic? 
       
       --Mr Topaz

    (This reply was composed outside of notes.  Here it is anyway,
    Marge.  Perhaps you'll finish writing your note by tomorrow,
    Lorna.  You might consider reading the paragraph which begins
    "Second", Tom_K.)
    
    Marge,

    You seem to believe that thoughtful, advance preparation is
    the correct method to prevent all unwanted pregnancies.  You also
    seem to be willing to excuse women who are not mentally competent
    to perform thoughtfully in advance.

    Now, I agree with you that thinking and planning are truly excellent
    methods for pregnancy prevention, and I applaud your ethical
    stance in perceiving that a woman should not be held responsible
    for consequences which she cannot grasp.

    However.  (You knew this was coming.)  Thoughtfulness and planning
    are not *sufficient* to prevent pregnancy, and this is one point
    at which I believe your line of argument fails.  (There is another.)

    As we all know from reading in this conference, all birth control
    methods fail.  Barrier methods fail, for reasons not understood,
    or understood all too well.  (E.g., he could not be bothered to wait
    while she prepared.)  Even The Pill fails -- for no known reason --
    once every one hundred women years, as well as failing when the
    woman vomits, has poor liver function, is given antibiotics,
    or takes large quantities of antihistamines, barbiturates, dilantin,
    ibuprofin, or other drugs.

    You might argue, ~Well, since we all know these things fail, any
    woman who uses them has to accept the consequences of their failure.~

    I claim otherwise.  First, not *all* women know that no method is
    failure-proof, and certainly they don't realize that none are
    fool-proof.

    Second, my notion of "consequences" differs from yours.  However
    hard I try to avoid it, I may be in an auto accident.  If I am,
    am, then the consequences are that my car and perhaps my body are
    damaged.  *However*, I am entitled to purchase repairs for both.
    I see no reason why a woman who has a pregnancy accident should be
    treated so differently from a woman who has a car accident.

    Third, the future changes, sometimes right out from under us.  Today,
    a woman may have a husband whose income, combined with her income,
    makes it possible for her to afford a baby, and tomorrow be a
    deserted wife with a gutted bank account, no furniture, and an
    overdue rent payment.

    Now, as I said, I really think planning, preparation, moderate
    behavior, etc., are The Right Way to Go in pregnancy prevention.
    Nevertheless, I am really loathe to see ditsy behavior become a
    criminal offense.

    Why?  Because we all behave in a ding-bat fashion from time to
    time.  It is all too normal to lock yourself out of your car or
    house, to forget to buy milk, toilet paper, or light bulbs, or to
    turn right instead of left.  It should not take nine months and
    thousands of dollars to correct a momentary mistake.

    It goes beyond that.  Some of us are *raised* as scatter-brained
    idiots.  My best friend in high school was like that.  When she
    was with me a lot, she could recover, but when she was in the
    bosom of her family, she could really not think straight!  (And
    she was a National Merit finalist, so she had brains.)  That
    was her family role, and she was not permitted to leave it.  I
    would never tolerate having her life ruined because she came from
    a particular kind of dysfunctional family, and I can't imagine
    that you would either.

    							Ann B.

    Re: .-1
    
    Tom, I find myself feeling both angry and offended by your comment
    about the illness being better than the cure.  Since you haven't
    been in the situation, I feel that you're not in a valid position
    to make that claim for those of us who have been.  I realize that
    this is your opinion and I'm not criticizing your opinion.  What
    I am singed about is the way you chose to present it in =wn=.  Is
    there another way that it could be stated?
    
    Thanks for listening-
    Barb

The following was posted as reply .208, except for the last paragraph, which I
have reworded, in deference to the wishes of the author of reply .209.
It is never my intent to offend anyone, or make them angry, and I apologize
for having inadvertently done so. 
						Tom_K

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

re .204

>    	Tom, let's say they moved your office ten miles away (and
 		etc,
>    	into the office, so you are fired.

	My employer would be within their rights. And while I might 
	moan and complain, I'd still know in my heart that the action
	was morally and ethically permissible.

>    	You say that you would never accept employment under those
>    	conditions 

	I never made that statement, and demand that you either show evidence
	I have, or retract your assertion that I did.

>	(yet you are suggesting that women be forced to
>    	accept SEX on the basis of being punished/penalized for
>    	occurances[sic] that are beyond the control of women, such as
>    	failure of the birth control manufacturers to make products
>    	that are 100% effective.)

	I make no such suggestion.
    
>    	Hey, you don't have to work.  You could live under a bridge
>    	with your family and eat garbage.  If you DO chose to work,
>    	you accept certain risks (one of which being that they could
>    	fire you for reasons beyond your control, such as the one
>    	I brought up.)

	That is a fact of life. An unpleasant one to be sure, but a fact
	nevertheless. Rather than bemoaning the inherent unfairness of
	life, isn't it more productive to spend your energy making the
	best of it?
    
>	  So, therefore, we want a culture
>    	that allows women to have sex without penalizing us for occurances
>    	which are beyond our control

	A noble goal to be sure. But presently unattained (note I did not 
	say unattainable). Until it is attained I submit that attempting
	to make an inherently unfair world fair by capital punishment
	of an innocent child is morally bankrupt.

>    	The idea is that it is hardly *just* to force penalties on
>    	people when they merely took ordinary, everyday risks (such
>    	as a natural act like sex or driving to work) when they did
>    	nothing wrong to deserve the penalty and took no worse risks
>    	than millions of other people who were NOT forced to suffer
>    	the same penalty.

	Life is unfair. Sue God or Darwin, according to your beliefs,
	but it won't rectify the situation. We can try to make the best
	of a situation, but to do so at the expense of innocent third parties
	is unacceptable.
    
>    	To me, that sounds like a "Russian Roulette" form of justice
>    	(and unless you can show me a way to spread the same exact
>    	physical risk for the same act to ALL people, then I think
>    	that it is unfair to expect women to suffer a physical penalty
>    	for an act like sex on such capricious grounds as merely having
>    	uteruses that are capable of becoming impregnated.)

	I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion that it is unfair. But 
	that is the situation that life has dealt out, and the current 
	attempt to address this inequity is even more unfair that the 
	inequity it was supposed to correct.

					Tom_K

    	RE:  .208
    
    	Tom, I am not asking for a system of fairness that has not YET
    	been attained.
    
    	I am merely asking to KEEP the system we have *RIGHT NOW* (which
    	*allows* women to make their own choices about their bodies in
    	cases of unwanted pregnancy.)
    
    	We already *have* what I want.  I just don't want to lose it.

re .211

	But I do understand. The current situation is the result of
	human error. Such errors are plentiful in history. But as
	progress is made, they are corrected. I am confident that 
	a future, enlightened Supreme Court will correct the
	mistake of Roe vs Wade.

					Tom_K

    	RE:  .212
    
    	There were several enlightened states that had legal abortions
    	*before* Roe vs. Wade, and I am confident that they will continue
    	to keep their current laws even *if* a future Supreme Court
    	makes the unfortunate mistake of overturning that decision
    	(sending us firmly backward in time.)
    
    	Be assured that women of means will *always* be able to afford
    	to make their own choices (by visiting enlightened states or
    	countries where they are given that option.)
    
    	It is the poor women who will suffer most (by only having the
    	choice between a risky backstreet abortion and abject poverty.)
    	Most likely, the millions of fetuses (of poor women) who *will*
    	be saved will be brought into a world where their government
    	values their right to be born (and then expects that no one
    	should be forced to keep those now-humans alive by sacrificing
    	tax dollars of 'respectable citizens' to that end.)
    
    	My one hope is that pill-induced abortions will have become
    	accessible enough (by the time our Supreme Court thrusts us
    	back into the dark ages) that poor women will have the kinds of
    	safe options that richer women will always have.
    
    	One way or another, women will continue to seek choices (whether
    	those choices become illegal, more expensive, or what.)
    
    	I would imagine that organized crime is jumping for joy at the
    	profits they can expect to make from the illegalization of
    	abortion.  

    Re .200:
    
    I think we were all answering simultaneously, not realizing that
    we were stacking up questions for Marge.  I read .194 and answered;
    by the time I was done, three other responses had slipped in!
    
    -Tracy
    

    re .173:
    
    > "Enslaving a woman" is an interesting concept.  How do you suppose
    > someone enslaves someone who has willfully, consensually, had sex
    > and become pregnant as a result?
      
    Slavery is not defined by how one got into it but whether or not
    one can get *out* of it.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

Re: several in last few days by Tom_K and his critics...

Tom's position is perfectly logical and consistent. And it's
also compassionate, if one grants his premise (i.e., life begins
at conception). After all, if one has to choose between killing
one human being and causing inconvenience (even suffering) to
another human being, it's far more compassionate to allow both
to live, even if it means pain for one.

The analogy about driving one's car to work is ridiculous. To
carry it even further...  Let's say I worked for a fascist-mentality
company that would fire me unconditionally if I were even one minute
late for work. Assume that one morning I see my usual route closed
and a crew doing work on the road. I realize at this point that
taking a detour will mean that I'll be late and lose my job. Still,
this does not mean that I have the right to *kill* the work crew
in order to take my usual route!

The only way to refute Tom's argument is to deny his premise. Any
other approach seems merely "preaching to the converted."

    re .217, to equate the life of a fetus with that of an adult human
    being is ridiculous.  The fetus wouldn't even know the difference
    if it wasn't born.  Can you remember before you were born?  Were
    you sitting there saying, "Oh, I hope Mommy doesn't have an abortion.
     I sure do want to get born."  No, you wouldn't even have known
    the difference.  I, personally, would put the life of a dog or cat
    already born before the life a human fetus in the first trimester.
     The dog or cat is enjoying it's life to the best of it's ability
    and can know fear and pain.
    
    You and Tom_K are putting the life of an unborn fetus before the
    life of an adult female.  It is wrong to make an adult human being
    suffer so that a fetus that doesn't even know the difference can
    live.  The way I see it, as long as the fetus is in the woman's
    body it is up to her to decide if it lives or not and nobody else.
    
    When I compare abortion to the suffering that having an unwanted
    child can do, I *know* abortion is the more compassionate than causing
    suffering to an already living human being.
    
    You seem to care so much about this unborn enfant (who might be
    a man!), yet you have so little compassion for an adult female (or
    possibly teenager) whose life is in trouble that I am appalled!
    
    Lorna
    

    Let me try a different analogy....I haven't liked the 'drive
    to work' one either.

    Suppose you're playing baseball, and you break your ankle
    sliding into second base (like it looked like Mike Scioscia
    did in last night's game).  Should your attitude by 'Well, I
    knew I could get hurt when I played the game'?  Or would you
    say 'I better get myself to the hopital to get this fixed'?

    I would head right for the emergency room.

    Getting medical treatment doesn't mean you take no responsiblity
    for your accident.  It's the responsible thing to do.
    bob

Mez that likes to stretch ideas to their limits to see where they go votes:
agree.

Mez that is a member of CPSR, was raised a woman and hence needs to look at all
questions and problems in as much complexity and richness as possible, and
finds this a difficult issue votes:
can't vote.

Mez appreciates Marge's input, and all relatively brief and interesting ideas
put forward by the participants.

But how do you all get the time to read _all_ of these replies? (I shouldn't
have been out sick... :-).

Can I count twice?
	Mez

re .219

	When you break your ankle sliding, who must the doctors
	kill in order to make you better?

						Tom_K

    Um, Lorna, at what age do you suppose a newborn baby becomes able
    to say, "Gee, I hope Mommy doesn't kill me?"  At what age do you
    suppose it's aware of more than being hungry or cold?  At what
    age does it enjoy life? 
    
    And is it okay to kill the child up to the time when it has that
    awareness?

    I'm asking this somewhat rhetorically, not to pick on you. There
    have been many human cultures who had this very belief -- that a
    baby was not human until some months after birth, commonly when it
    was walking and talking, sometimes earlier.  Often the child was
    not even given a name until this point.  Anthropologists assume a
    biological explanation that when the infant death rate is high, it
    doesn't pay to get emotionally attached to a baby before you were
    sure it was going to live.
    
    In some cultures, the children will be allowed to die first in
    times of famine while the adults take the food.  This makes sense
    from the perspective of preserving the species -- the adult is
    likely to survive to produce other babies but the child is not
    likely to survive if the parent dies. 
    
    So our own culture's bias that a child is a human being the
    instant it's born is even arguable.  
    
    --bonnie

Re: < Note 183.218 by APEHUB::STHILAIRE "Food, Shelter & Diamonds" >

>    You seem to care so much about this unborn enfant (who might be
>    a man!), yet you have so little compassion for an adult female (or
>    possibly teenager) whose life is in trouble that I am appalled!
    
And I'm kind of puzzled as to how you could draw such a conclusion
about my beliefs and position. I think I've made it quite clear that
I don't believe abortion should be a crime, or that anyone should
be punished or penalized for it.

    I think the Court's reasoning on the timing of the increasing
    strictures might be enlightening.  Does anyone know how that reasoning
    went?  As I recall, there was good science and considerable compassion
    for all involved.
    
    						=maggie

Read Bob Woodward's, "The Brethern". There is a chapter on Roe vs Wade,
and the process by which a majority was attained, and how Justice Blackmun
reasoned the decision, and wrote the opinion. The chapter can be read 
stand-alone if you don't want to take the time to read the whole book.
Woodward tries to put a left wing spin on everything, but keep that in mind,
and it's pretty easy to separate the facts from the editorializing.

						Tom_K

    re .222, well, I would say that most people aren't really aware
    that they are alive and that they could die, and might not want
    to, until they are about 2 1/2 to 3 yrs. old.  My earliest memories
    of having conversations with others and being aware that I was a
    human are from about the age of 3 yrs.  Maybe some genius types
    become aware earlier, or maybe it's random and has nothing to do
    with brains.  What do you think?
    
    While it's true infants might not be aware that they are alive,
    I certainly think it's too late to abort or kill them, if only for
    the pain and suffering it would bring their parents.  I don't think
    the parents have a right to kill them either after they're born.
     It is true, as you have said, that our culture tends to look upon
    babies as humans the minute they're born, but no necessarily before.
     Maybe we could say that when they can survive on their own, and
    don't need to be in the mother's body in order to survive, that
    they can be considered human beings in their own right.
    
    I think an abortion is a lesser evil than making an adult woman
    suffer.  And, while the anti-abortionists who have written in here
    seem to consider an abortion murder, they seem to me to have no
    sympathy or compassion at all for the suffering a woman with an
    unwanted pregnancy can go through.  I cannot equate abortion with
    murder.
    
    Lorna
      

    <--(.225)
    
    Thanks Tom, but I do know how to discover the information; I was hoping
    someone (Ann?) could summarise the reasoning for us here. There is very
    little point in going back and forth as has been the case here til yet,
    and I thought that if we had the rationale in front of us, it might
    serve as a focal point for a more reasoned discusssion.
    
    						=maggie 

    	RE:  driving_a_car_to_work analogy

    	The idea I was trying to get at with that analogy (which was
    	directed to a man for whom the fear of becoming pregnant himself
    	after sex is purely theoretical) is what the FUTURE would be
    	like if women were given NO CHOICE after becoming pregnant
    	for reasons beyond their control.  I was also talking about
    	the FEAR that will become a daily reality for some women even
    	if they take every precaution possible when they have sex.
    	(My analogy was about finding yourself the victim of a circum-
    	stance that will forever change your life and *possibly* even
    	ruin the lives of your other children -- and there is nothing
    	in the whole world that you can do about it.  You are simply
    	stuck because someone ELSE thought you ought to be forced to
    	pay the consequences for something over which you had NO control.)
    
    	Try to imagine living your life with the fear that your destiny
    	could be forever altered/ruined by a fairly ordinary act that
    	you do on a relatively frequent basis as part of your life (along
    	with billions of other people on this planet.)  Imagine that
    	every time you do this particular act, you live with the fear
    	that something could happen (in the course of this act) that
    	is so far beyond your control that there is no way that you
    	could have prevented it (and you are now utterly *powerless* 
    	to correct it after it has happened.)
    
    	What I'm talking about is what life *WOULD* be like for many
    	poor women if abortions are made illegal.  
    
    	The idea of pregnancy being merely "inconvenient" for some
    	women is preposterous.  Before abortion became legal, many
    	women took very high risks and died rather than face what
    	the pregnancy would do to their lives.  Others committed
    	suicide as their only way out.  Obviously, their reasons
    	involved life situations that made an unwanted pregnancy 
    	much more serious than the word "inconvenient" implies.

    Re .223, Chuck, I guess you've gotten me so confused by your arguments
    in defense of Tom_K's stand that I don't even remember what you
    really and truly think yourself.  Re .217, I thought you were
    *agreeing* with Tom_K, not simply showing how his argument is logical.
     My comments about lack of compassion were meant to be directed
    at Tom_K, Marge and anybody else who agrees with them.
    
    Lorna
    
    

(This note was .228, but it needed some minor editing.)

Re:  .133, Marge Davis's poll, agree or disagree:

>  "There is nothing immoral about abortion when it contributes to
>  a woman's well-being."

I agree with this statement as written.  In fact, I will go farther:  for me,
there is nothing immoral about abortion.  Period.

That said, however, I also agree with much of what has been written subse-
quent to this question.  Even though I don't believe that abortion is im-
moral, I also don't believe that it should be the answer to all problem preg-
nancies.  I would never choose abortion as a casual means of contraception,
for example.  And the lack of immorality doesn't preclude it's having a pro-
found effect on the woman who must undergo one.  So it's not something we
should treat lightly.

Ultimately, though, I think what is and is not moral is a personal decision
which each individual must make (possibly in conjunction with family, friends,
religious support, and other counselors).  The reason that the abortion issue
goes round and round without being resolved is that you cannot prove
that a fetus is or is not a person; you simply have to decide for yourself.
For Tom_K, for example, a fetus is a person from the moment it is conceived,
and his abortion concerns flow fairly logically from this belief.  For others,
personhood comes later.  For me, a fetus becomes a person when it is born;
it is not a person before that time.  But that is not something I (or anyone
else, for that matter) can prove, any more than others can *prove* that God
exists.  Rather, it is a matter of faith which you must decide for yourself,
and must decide in a manner that you can live with.

Thus the decision about the morality of abortion becomes effectively a
religious decision.  And that is ultimately why I believe the government has
no business getting involved with it:  our constitution provides for freedom
of religious belief.  The belief about when life begins is, in essence, re-
ligious.

						--Q

Re:  .224

>    I think the Court's reasoning on the timing of the increasing
>    strictures might be enlightening.  Does anyone know how that reasoning
>    went?

My memory of Roe v. Wade:  When the court considered the case, four of the
justices were in favor of prohibiting all government restrictions on abortion.
Four other justices were in favor of allowing the states to regulate it pretty
much at will.

That left Justice Hugo Black as the swing vote.  He pretty much came up with
the three trimester division stuff all by himself.  Since the other justices
were split, his vote was the one that ended up becoming the law.  At the time
it pleased almost no one.  Judging by the amount of controversy we have today,
it doesn't appear that the intervening years have brought many people around
to his way of thinking.

					--Q

    For those of you who don't believe a fetus is a baby until it's
    born -- what do you think ought to happen in the situation
    when a woman has a late-term abortion and the aborted fetus
    is alive after the operation?  This does happen, so it's not
    a purely theoretical question.
    
    Should the doctor or nurse quietly smother it?
    
    Should it become a ward of the state?
    
    Should the mother have to take it anyway?
    
    What if it lives and the father wants custody?
    
    I don't have answers for these issues, nor am I intending them
    to be loaded questions.  I'm asking because this is a serious
    issue for me. 
    
    --bonnie

re .230

>     My comments about lack of compassion were meant to be directed
>    at Tom_K, Marge and anybody else who agrees with them.

	SET/FLAME:ON

	The suggestion that I am somehow lacking in compassion, coming
	from a person who openly claims that the cold-blooded killing
	of innocent children is OK, somehow strikes me as hypocritical.

	SET/FLAME:OFF

						Tom_K

Re:  .233

>   What do you think ought to happen in the situation when a woman has a
>   late-term abortion and the aborted fetus is alive after the operation?

A tough question.  My vote:  I don't think anyone should quietly smother it,
but I also think that no heroic measures should be taken to save it.  If it
survives on its own, then it has become a person.  In that case, I think I
would be inclined to make it a ward of the state, and offer it up for adoption.
(I would probably let the mother know about this, and if she had a change of
heart I might let her keep it.)  I'm not sure what to do if the father wanted
custody.

>    I don't have answers for these issues, nor am I intending them
>    to be loaded questions.

Be that as it may, these are loaded questions.  And they very much need to
be asked.

						--Q

    re .234, I'd like you to quote me saying that I advocate the cold
    blooded killing of innocent children.  What a silly idea.  Anybody
    who knows me at all or has read many of my notes would know it to be
    nonsense.
    
    I simply stated that it seems to me that you have no sympathy for
    women and girls who get pregnant by accident, when having a child
    would pose a serious problem to their life's happiness.  Am I wrong.
     Do you indeed feel sorry for these women?
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .233, Bonnie, I don't really believe that *late-term* abortions
    should be available at whim (which I pretty much *do* believe for
    earlier in the pregnancy).  I think they should be available if,
    for example, a woman just found out the baby was going to be retarded
    or something and knew she didn't want to deal with it.  In the case
    that a late term abortion is performed and the baby lives then I
    think, 1) if the mother wants it she gets it  2) if she doesn't
    want it and the father does, he gets it  3) it shouldn't be quietly
    smothered 4)if neither parent wants it it should be up for adoption.
    
    While I do think that abortion should be a choice early in the
    pregnancy, I don't think a woman should be able to wait until she's
    7 months pregnant and then decide she doesn't want the baby and
    have an abortion.  
    
    Lorna
    

re .236

>	I'd like you to quote me saying that I advocate the cold
>    blooded killing of innocent children.

.66>    Personally, I think that since the medical knowledge exists for
.66>    safe[sic] abortions that they should be legal for any woman who wants
.66>    one, for any reason.  The way I see it is that if I get pregnant
.66>	by accident, and decide I want an abortion, it's nobody else's damn
.66>    business.

.164>	Although, I obviously am willing to argue in favor of keeping abortion
.164>	legal

.179>	Then, I would like the freedom to willfully have
.179>	an abortion if I don't want the baby. 
    
.218>	I, personally, would put the life of a dog or cat already 
.218>	born before the life a human fetus in the first trimester.

.218>	The way I see it, as long as the fetus is in the woman's
.218>	body it is up to her to decide if it lives or not and nobody else.
    
.237>	Re .233, Bonnie, I don't really believe that *late-term* abortions
.237>	should be available at whim (which I pretty much *do* believe for
.237>	earlier in the pregnancy).  I think they should be available if,
.237>	for example, a woman just found out the baby was going to be retarded
.237>	or something and knew she didn't want to deal with it.

.237>	While I do think that abortion should be a choice early in the
.237>	pregnancy

                ---------------------------

    
>    I simply stated that it seems to me that you have no sympathy for
>    women and girls who get pregnant by accident, when having a child
>    would pose a serious problem to their life's happiness.  Am I wrong.
>     Do you indeed feel sorry for these women?

	Bear in mind we probably have different circumstances in mind when 
	we say "pregnant by accident". Yes you are wrong. I do indeed feel
	sorry for them. 

						Tom_K

Guess it's about time I threw in my 2 cents.

I am pro-choice, and what that means to me is that I want every female
to have the option of saying NO or YES to abortion. 

I personally believe that life is on-going.  What that means is that
the sperm in (most) mens' bodies are living and the eggs in (most)
womens' bodies are living and given the right set of circumstances
they will unite and become an unborn human, then become a born human.
(that, of course, assumes all goes well and no abortion is performed.)

Now, then, this belief brings up a really scary idea.  What if pro-life 
forces decide they like the idea of "life is on-going"?  Will it then 
become a crime for a man to have an orgasm outside of "trying to impregnate 
a female"?  After all, there's a lot of wasted potential there.  And, will 
it become a crime for a female to allow a menstrual period to pass without 
trying to become pregnant?

That may sound ridiculous, but it is scary.

Liz

    re .238, I don't consider abortion to be the cold blooded killing
    of innocent children.  I don't consider fetuses to be children or
    human, therefore *I* didn't advocate the murder of innocent children.
     We disagree on the basic premise, and after all this discussion,
    I don't think there's much more to be said (between us anyway).
    You'll never change my mind and I'll never change yours!

    Lorna
    

    What good questions, Bonnie.  I don't think that the fetus should
    be kept alive and given to either one of the parents -- how would
    you deal with the fact that you tried to kill your "child?"  That's
    a psychological burden not easily dealt with.  Plus once you've
    made that decision I don't think it should be reversible.  
    
    Trying to keep the fetus alive as if it were a preemie, which it
    essentially is, might be a valid option.  It coud then be put up for
    adoption. It really depends on what side affects the procedure might
    have caused; saline is used, right? I'd ask the question: what would
    you do if you had a pet which gave birth prematurely and there was no
    way the {whatever} could survive? Oxygen deprivation might be a humane
    approach in this instance. 
    
    This brings back the basic problems I have with the approaches used
    for later-term abortion.  I think that a lethal injection to kill
    the fetus would probably be the best way, although I don't believe
    that is currently done.
    
    This really sounds horribly callous and cold-blooded.  I don't know
    if I could do this as a profession; even though in my mind the fetus
    isn't a person it still would be very hard to do late-term abortions.
    Then again, I would find it hard to do circumcisions as well, since
    that procedure is done without anesthetics (now you know why most males
    are screwed up ;^).

    Boy, this is a TRIP!
    
    I really wish Maggie would step in with an objective look at the
    cultural differences between pro-choice and right-to-life people.
    When I think about other cultures and their methods of dealing with
    life, and the fact that many of us, if we knew, would be horrified,
    but trained anthropoligists have to learn not to interfere, well
    (out of breath now) I think we'd have to realize that this drastic
    difference in values within this nation needs to be dealt with by
    objective people who are qualified to do so, not the hotheads with
    the conflict. But of course its not that simple.
    
    This isn't coming out quite right.
    
    Its so funny. I can finally begin to understand the position of
    a right-to-life person. And I feel sooooo sorry for them. It must
    be very difficult to watch "senseless killing". And the only response
    from those who kill is "change your value system!" They probably
    can't, any more than those of us who are pro-choice can. Values
    and value systems are NOT easily changed.
    
    Tom, I think we've butted heads before, and I want to discuss this
    "murder" issue. I haven't heard you say whether you advocate the death
    penalty for women who have abortions yet. I'm very interested in
    your opinion.
    
    There are times when I think that if abortions were happening in
    other countries, the word "murder" might not be used. Its more like
    senseless killing. Like what happens in war. Innocent people die
    in a power struggle. That's what abortion is: a power struggle between
    a fetus and a pregnant woman. But the victors will never call it 
    murder. Only a TRUE peace advocate does so, and is frequently silenced. 
                                                       
    But then, nor do most people kill the victors after a war. The dead are
    buried and mourned, the living continue. Its funny how often we
    try to stop a war, but not by slaughtering the soldiers. We simply
    want to end the killing. And I think a lot of pro-life advocates
    feel this way.  Its not "kill aborters", its "stop abortion"!
    
    That's why its hard to set a penalty.
    
    
    Now, in my view, an unwanted pregnancy is like a little war between two
    people. (actually, giving an EMBRYO that much credit is really pushing
    it. Most women abort EMBRYO's not fetuses!) Its a power struggle. And
    when the woman wins, its not terribly unexpected. But sometimes,
    people, peace-loving people, want to say "Wait, stop. End this war!"
    And no, they don't care WHY the war is waged, they just don't want to
    see ANYONE *die*. Not the mother, not the child-to-be. When you have
    these kinds of feelings against killing, you don't see that when the
    mother does not abort, she loses the war. You don't CARE that she loses
    the war. 
    
    This to me is quite thought-provoking, since I'm a peacenik, but
    I believe in abortion. (Yes, pro-abortion! Almost as much as the
    government of China! Funny how no one is jumping up and down over
    the "murder" going on over there! Is it because the reason behind
    it is so compelling - horrible overpopulation. Or is it because 
    the people themselves are Chinese, and possibly less valuable in
    this world? I hope not...)
    
    Here is my resolution. I think its equivalent to the Monroe Doctrine.
    I'll stay out of your war, if you stay out of mine. A policy of
    non-interference.
    
    Perhaps I should ask, do right-to-life supporters believe that some
    wars are just. And the lives lost were fairly taken and justifyable?
    When a pilot bombs innocent children during war, has he committed
    murder? Is it punishable? Or is it just a shame... and the living
    continue?
    
    Sometimes, I think that abortion is sticky because its so close
    to home. And war is not sticky for the opposite reason.
    
    Isn't it ironic how we value the lives closest to us, and often
    write off the ones far away.
    
    

re .244

>    Tom, I think we've butted heads before, and I want to discuss this
>    "murder" issue. I haven't heard you say whether you advocate the death
>    penalty for women who have abortions yet. I'm very interested in
>    your opinion.

	See .118    


>    I believe in abortion. (Yes, pro-abortion! Almost as much as the
>    government of China! Funny how no one is jumping up and down over
>    the "murder" going on over there! Is it because the reason behind
>    it is so compelling - horrible overpopulation. Or is it because 
>    the people themselves are Chinese, and possibly less valuable in
>    this world? I hope not...)

	Oh, but we do. And the liberals just say, "Oh, they're just a bunch of
	anti-communist right wing extremist nuts".
    
						Tom_K

    Re .245:
    
    Thank you, Mike.  I thought I was the only one who was having a
    problem with the responsibility-for-its-own sake argument.  The
    question of whether the fetus is a human being (and, therefore,
    whether abortion is the taking of a human life) is the difficult
    one.  As far as I'm concerned, IF it is, that would be the only
    valid reason for forcing a woman through an unwanted pregnancy.
    
    -Tracy       

>>    I believe in abortion. (Yes, pro-abortion! Almost as much as the
>>    government of China! Funny how no one is jumping up and down over
>>    the "murder" going on over there! Is it because the reason behind
>>    it is so compelling - horrible overpopulation. Or is it because 
>>    the people themselves are Chinese, and possibly less valuable in
>>    this world? I hope not...)

>	Oh, but we do. And the liberals just say, "Oh, they're just a bunch of
>	anti-communist right wing extremist nuts".
    
>						Tom_K

     Tom,
   I assume that what you're saying here is that you are opposed
to the Chinese using abortion in their attempt to curb their over-
population problem. I'm curious, then, what do you think they should be
doing? Bear in mind, even if the one-child-only policy were strictly
complied with, the Chinese would have an incredibly difficult time
feeding their population. Since the policy isn't being strictly
adhered to (and women are becoming pregnant a second time), do you
think they should face mass starvation rather than terminate these
pregnancies? Please bear in mind that this starvation is _certain_
(according to the Chinese government's figures), not simply a
"possibility".

    Re .248, Tracy, how could you think you were the only one having
    a problem with the "responsibility for it's own sake argument"?
    I thought that it was pretty obvious that Suzanne and myself had
    problems with it.  That's what I meant when I said that since the medical
    technology is available then we should be able to avail ourselves
    of it to make our lives better.  To me responsibility doesn't mean
    that people have to accept whatever biology gives them.  It means
    that people accept the responsibility of choosing what they will
    do.  I definately agree with .245.
    
    Lorna
    

	What should the Chinese do:

	1) Abandon Communism and adopt a Capitalist economy. This will
	   result in a huge increase in agricultural production, which
	   will, in turn reduce (not necessarily eliminate) the pressure
	   of overpopulation.

	2) Do the same thing that the US *should* be doing, increase the
	   education of the sexually active wrt pregnancy and birth control,
	   and shift the emphasis to birth control rather than abortion.


								Tom_K

    You can't force people to be responsible and it doesn't do any
    good to say they ought to be responsible.  It's probably true that
    they should be, but there isn't any way on this side of Utopia to
    make everybody assume even minimal responsibility, let alone the
    kind of unselfish choice of pain involved in bearing an unwanted
    child, no matter how innocent that child is. 
    
    I think Tom's brought up an important point -- the average
    American doesn't know enough about his or her body, sexual nature,
    and available methods to be considered even remotely responsible
    for their choices regarding sex.  
    
    --bonnie

< Note 183.251 by 11SRUS::KRUPINSKI "Duke's a Hazard" >


	2) Do the same thing that the US *should* be doing, increase the
	   education of the sexually active wrt pregnancy and birth control,
	   and shift the emphasis to birth control rather than abortion.


								Tom_K


Tom, I couldn't agree with you more!  This is what we ALL should be doing.
It's a radical idea, but I would so like to see the pro-choice and pro-life
factions join together and put their energy into this!  I THINK we can 
agree on this, we'd probably all like to see an end to abortion (don't
think it's possible, but would like to see it) and I believe the energy
we're all expending on the abortion issue could be directed to one 
heck of an effort on education! 

One very minor nit, we shouldn't limit the education to the "sexually active".
Pregnancy happens for other reasons.

Thank you for raising this point.  You and I disagree on the fundamental
issue under discussion in this particular note, but I'm with you on this
point and appreciate your insight.

Regards,

Liz

    	I actually read all of the replies before responding.
    
    	First, are the "don't have sex unless you are willing to
    	accept the consequences" people saying that sex is for
    	procreation only?  Do you deny that it is important to
	a happy marriage?  I think it is very unrealistic to
    	present not having sex as a woman's alternative to unwanted
    	pregnancies.  I don't think you really expect any married 
    	woman to make this "choice", but are stating it so that you
    	can make the unwanted pregnancy sound like something that
    	she selected and justify forcing her to bear the consequences.
    
    	I am pro-choice, but I believe that if the fetus is capable
    	of surviving outside of the body, then attempts should be made
    	to save it and put it up for adoption.  In my mind that is the
    	point at which it has "rights" as a person.  Before that, when
    	it is dependent on the attachment to the mother to survive,
    	it is a part of her, and I think she has a right to terminate
   	it.
    
    	Linda

    re.233
    
    My sister-in-law worked for a time in neonatal intensive care in
    a large county hospital.  The situation you describe of a woman
    having a late-term abortion and producing a live child happened
    seven times within the four years she was at the hospital.
    
    Five times the child expired within minutes.
    
    Twice, after routine post-natal start-up procedures, the child was
    transferred to Kit's [my sister-in-law] unit.
    
    In both of these cases the woman dis-avowed any ownership and the
    child became a ward of the state.  One father was unspecified.
    The other had made abortion a condition of remaining in the marriage.
    
    Neither child was subjected to 'heroic' measures, merely routine
    IV and isolette with an oxygen-rich air supply.  One died after
    a week. The other, with some expected developmental problems was
    adopted at age two-months.  This was 5 years ago.

    For myself, I don't think that live children should be quietly
    smothered.  I don't not pretend to have _the_ answers.
    
      Ann

    I for one have lived the "scenario" of being a woman/single parent
    for fifteen years.  I am well aware of my responsibility to provide
    for myself and for my child.  I am also aware that it is more
    difficult for me to accomplish than for the man of the real world.
    (Although personally I view it as a challenge rather than a burden.)
    I know that I earn less money but that I still pay the same cost
    for necessities.  My child has not had and will not have the same
    level living of that of a child of a two parent family.  That is
    reality.
    
    I would suggest that the majority of women are aware of what it
    takes in the real world to provide for themselves.  It is this
    knowledge of reality that is the basis for decisions for each
    person.
    
    Let me also say that it was not my decision that my child should
    be economically deprived.  I chose to be married.  My husband was
    a capable provider and responsible person.  Unfortunately he died.
    
    People can make all the logical arguments but, I as a women live in the
    real world, as does my sister in-law who raised three children by
    herself, as do many women.  

< Note 183.251 by 11SRUS::KRUPINSKI "Duke's a Hazard" >

>	What should the Chinese do:

>	1) Abandon Communism and adopt a Capitalist economy. This will
>	   result in a huge increase in agricultural production, which
>	   will, in turn reduce (not necessarily eliminate) the pressure
>	   of overpopulation.

>	2) Do the same thing that the US *should* be doing, increase the
>	   education of the sexually active wrt pregnancy and birth control,
>	   and shift the emphasis to birth control rather than abortion.

  As far as 1) goes: I agree. It would be nice if they gave up Communism
 and adopted Capitalism, but that's not a realistic solution for them.
 They are, however, just starting to adopt some Capitalistic ideas,
 and even allowing foreigners to conduct business in China. None-the-less,
 these changes just can't happen fast enough to save them, although
 perhaps their increased agricultural production will make these
 abortions unnecessary for future generations. But for now, it seems
 they have little choice.

 As far as 2) goes: You're forgetting that we're talking about a culture
 radically different from our own. The Chinese aren't becoming pregnant
 because they don't know about birth control. They're becoming pregnant often
 because they WANT to. In their society, you should have as many children
 as possible, preferably sons, so they can take care of you in your
 old age. In rural communities, where the "one-child-only" policy
 is almost completely ineffective, people are still having 8 or 9 children.
 They NEED these children to help on the farm. (In these particularly
 remote areas, there are family farms, not collective farms.)

 There was a television show about this on PBS called "China's Only
 Child". I think it may have been a Nova episode. It's very informative
 (and the source for most of the preceding paragraph), and shows
 several aspects of Chinese society. This show included a 9-month-pregnant
 woman being coerced into an abortion. It also included a segment where
 a woman's toddler was reminding her to take her birth control pills,
 because even at such a young age, he'd been educated (or should I say
 "trained"?) by the government (through his daycare, mostly) to 
 know/believe that mom must be careful with her birth control, because
 he didn't want any siblings.
  

    I just know that I will get flamed for some of what I am gong to
    say, but...  I also understand that some will note that "That isn't
    what you said in note <such and such>".  Hell, opinions change and
    ways of expressing them change.
    
    I do not support abortion.  No person has the right to kill.  I
    also don't support capital punishment nor use of deadly force in
    subduing an attacker.  Is there any situation that I could be involved
    in where I would authorize an abortion (if I had that power)? Answer:
    Yes.  Would I concure that this or that criminal should be sent
    to the chair? Answer: Yes.  Would I use deadly force on an attacker
    to save me or my family? Answer: Yes.
    
    I would do all these things, and would maintain that I was wrong
    before, durring and after doing them, because REGARDLESS of
    circumstances I have no right to take a life.  I may have that FREEDOM,
    but I do not have the right.
    
    It is also, not my place to judge someone else.  If they choose
    an abortion as a solution to a problem, I beleive them to be wrong.
     If they are wrong, God will have a few words with them at a time
    of God's choosing, not mine.  If they aren't wrong, and I am then
    no harm done, because while I thought there actions wrong I didn't
    judge them nor impede their actions.  (I have in the past, but don't
    anymore).
    
    As for some arguments and comments.  Someone mentioned the ineptness
    of doctors or scientist in not being able to design a 100% effective
    birthcontrol.  There is nothing inept about it.  Can any body show
    me a computer that they have helped design that is 100% fool proof,
    never fails and never needs upgrading?  Nothing is 100% and nothing
    is inept about it.  As for the argument  that the mother may die
    during child birth.  No one person is more important than any other.
     No *real* value can be placed on a human life.  The life that was
    Einstine had no greater *real* value than that of a bag lady.  The
    infinite value that is a human life does not have level if infinite.
    
    Likewise the talk of china and all the people that will, not could,
    (so we are told) starve because of overpopulation does not take
    away from the value of the human life that is forfite due to their
    laws.  That one human life is of infinite value, and so are the
    100 of millions of chinise.  But 100's of millions times their
    individual value of infinite = infinite value, the same value of
    the one child.  The needs of the many do not outweigh the needs
    fo the few, or the one.
    
    And again, I am not proposing anything!  I don't claim to have any
    solution (and you shouldn't either) <generic 'you'>.  Presented
    with the problem of "aborting this child WILL save these 100,000
    people, and we have PROOF", would cause me to say 'abort the child'.
    I would still be wrong, and I would still do it.
    
    Let's be presented with a problem, supposidly impossible, but none
    the less discussable.  It is conjectured that time flows like a
    river, with many tributaries.  Let's us say that you are privilaged
    enough to have acess to a device that allows you to see into the
    future and to select different tributaries (different future
    possibilities).  Looking into the future you see a pregnant woman.
     How she got that way is not relevant, but she wants an abortion.
    In one time line abortion is legal and she has it done and life
    continues as it is today.  In another time line abortion is not
    legal and she doesn't have one.  The child is born (wanted or not,
    criple or not, and the mother may or may not have died as a result
    of the birth).  This child grows up and discovers the cure for AIDS
    or founds true world peace or some such thing.
    
    This situation can be compounded by arrainging things such that
    without this humans influance a 3rd world war breaks out and all
    life on earth is destroyed, etc, etc.
    
    Now, and this is pointed at the pro-abortionist and pro-choise folks,
    with this knowlege, with the assumption that it is fact, how would
    you deal with it.  ONLY you have acess to this machine and you can't
    bring any of your fact into play.  They are there simply to provide
    you with a conviction that *that* child can not be aborted!
    
    The above question is retorical, but may help to understand some
    of what is being said by the anti-abortionist.  By what you would
    describe as 'my belief' and I 'know' to be fact (My presonal beleif
    in God), abortion *is* wrong, it *is* the taking of a human life
    and *can not* be condoned.  I can not present my 'proof' to you
    in any manner that would allow you to accept it *as* proof, any
    more than you could with the above situation (say the machine was
    blown up and all you can show are burned remains).  But taking the
    above situation as completely factual so that you know to the deepest
    levels of your self that what you saw in the machine is true, you
    can begin to understand some of the arguments, why the sound so
    intense and why they seem to perport seemingly non-facts.
    
    I know I am right, but I can't do anything about it.
    
    None of this came out quite right and I appologize up front if this
    just doesn't make any sense, but I tried... :-|
    
    jim
    

Re. the mention of China and several follow-ups (.244, .247, .249, 
.251, .257)...

My essay in .97 deals only with the "penalties" dilemma for right-to-
life advocates. I was also aware of a "foreign policy" dilemma, but
decided one set of thorny problems was enough for one note. However,
in light of the references to the forced abortions in China, I'd
like to comment.

Most of us would be outraged if the U.S. pursued friendly relations
with a foreign government that not merely permitted, but actively
instigated, mass murders of innocent citizens. For example, if another
country strongly encouraged people to kill blacks, Jews, Armenians,
or any other minority, the U.S. would probably break diplomatic relations,
and perhaps aid armed movements seeking to topple that government.
On the other hand, if the U.S. embraced such a government, the American
public would be outraged.

Now, if abortion is murder, then China is probably the most vicious,
criminal nation on earth! Tom has indicated that he opposes China's
policy, and I respect and applaud his statement. However, if the
Reagan administration (including Bush) genuinely feels abortion is
murder, why haven't they raised loud protests? Who haven't they cut
off diplomatic relations? Why haven't they launched military attacks
to stop the government-forced butchery of the unborn in China, or at
least encouraged insurgent groups within China?

Why, indeed, is China considered our "friend" rather than a vicious
murderer? And why do Administration officials fall all over themselves
to travel to China, make deals with China, and gets lots of publicity
for their "initiatives" involving China? Such friendship for the
world's biggest murderer?? Logically, this is absurd -- as if Franklin
Roosevelt had embraced Adolph Hitler because Germany was a "great
power" and decided that the Holocaust was merely a German "internal
matter"!

So, the world's biggest murderer is our close "friend." And yet Nicaragua
is our "enemy."  Is abortion legal in Nicaragua?  (I don't know - would
appreciate finding out.)  Whether it's legal there or not, I'm almost
certain that the government doesn't force women to have abortions.
(Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.)   Now, even if one assumes
the conservative point of view on Nicaragua, there is no possible combination
of Sandinasta "abuses" that could possibly be as evil as the systematic
"murder" of millions of innocent Chinese unborn children.

I guess, then, I'll just wait for Reagan and Bush to denounce China and
apologize to Nicaragua. But I won't hold my breath in the meantime.

re .251 (Tom_K)

> ...increase the education of the sexually active wrt
> pregnancy and birth control, and shift the emphasis to birth
> control rather than abortion. 

    FWIW, this pro-choice woman agrees with you completely --
    assuming that "sexually active" should have the word
    "potientially" before it.  My father is an elementary school
    principal, and some of the 10-12 year-olds are already
    active.  Children desparately need education from their
    families, at a *young* age, about sex and its possible good
    and bad consequences.  Since it is so difficult for many
    families to discuss this--if the parents are even adequately
    educated themselves, and willing to admit the possibility of
    that their own child(ren) might be sexually active/curious--
    it seems to fall to the schools to educate children.

    Unfortunately, although it seems to have been getting better,
    there's a lot of societal pressure against sex education in
    the schools.  I am pleased to hear Tom, as an ardent pro-life
    advocate, bring up this point on sex education, since I have
    the (possibly unfounded) belief that many pro-life advocates
    are against sex education. 

    -- Linda

    <--(.259)
    
    *WELL*-argued, Chuck!
    
    						=maggie

re .260

>    assuming that "sexually active" should have the word
>    "potentially" before it.  My father is an elementary school

	Given that the mind is a key component of sex, it would follow 
	that "sexually active", in a broad sense, includes thinking
	about sex. So I think I've covered your assumption. If not I
	endorse it. :-)

re .259

	I agree. Reagan is as gutless for not breaking off relations with
	China as Roosevelt was for not breaking off relations with 
	Germany in 1933. On the other hand, if you don't talk to the
	other side, you have no hope of accomplishing anything positive.

    re:253
    
    Nice idea, but unfortunately, many pro-lifers object to many forms
    of birth control because they act more or less as aborting agents.
    For example -- and I don't pretend to be medically knowledgable
    -- the IUD may work by preventing a fertilized egg from being implanted
    in the uterus.  Etc.
    
    Also, many pro-lifers (not all, I am sure) are opposed to giving
    any birth control information to unmarried people because they view
    it as giving them permission to engage in an immoral act.
    
    It is often, not always, the case that those who most ardently opposed
    abortion also oppose much, if not all, sex education.  I have lived
    through some of those "battles" in my own town in trying to support
    those who were working to bring sex ed into our own schools.
    
    Nancy

>    In one time line abortion is legal and she has it done and life
>    continues as it is today.  In another time line abortion is not
>    legal and she doesn't have one.  The child is born (wanted or not,
>    criple or not, and the mother may or may not have died as a result
>    of the birth).  This child grows up and discovers the cure for AIDS
>    or founds true world peace or some such thing.
    
>    This situation can be compounded by arrainging things such that
>    without this humans influance a 3rd world war breaks out and all
>    life on earth is destroyed, etc, etc.
    
   Yes. I think we all agree that it would be a terrible shame
 if a certain aborted fetus, allowed to grow into an adult, would
 have been a tremendously gifted individual who brought about
 world peace, wrote symphonies, cured cancer, etc.

   However, the standard reply to your scenario is: what is the
 fetus were allowed to develop into an adult, and was another Hitler,
 axe murderer, drug pusher, pimp, pornographer, etc.?
 I don't think this kind of argument can really lead to any valid
 conclusions about whether abortion should or should not be an option
 for pregnant women.

    	RE:  .258
    
    	Another kink in the "what if the fetus would have grown up
    	to save the world" argument is:  What if the Mother who *died*
    	(because she was denied her choice to have an abortion) is the
    	one who COULD HAVE and WOULD HAVE saved the world (with a cure
    	for AIDS, or whatever)?
    
    	Let's face it.  None of us can see into the future (which is
    	one of the things that makes decisions about unwanted pregnancies
    	so difficult.)  
    
    	Such decisions are *so* difficult, in fact, that it is *very*
    	important to me that women are given the *opportunity* to make
    	such important decisions about our own lives/bodies ourselves.

    	In regards to your comment about someone saying that doctors/
    	scientists were inept for not inventing birth control that is
    	100% effective.  That was a facetious assertion on my part (to
    	emphasize the fact that every fertile woman who has sex is in
    	danger of pregnancy through no lack of effort on her part to
    	prevent it.)  I was addressing the "responsibility" argument.

    
    I consider the whole debate over whether or not the fetus is human
    to be irrelevant to the issue of abortion. Suppose that instead
    of a fetus, there were adults who contract some dread disease that
    requires them to be connected to a healthy human being for survival,
    in exactly the same way that a fetus requires.
    
    Does this person have the right to grab the first person that walks
    by and force him to support him for the next 9 months?
    
    My answer is no. No one should be forced to do this except through
    their own free choice. That is once they've agreed to do it, it's
    alright to require them to fulfill the entire 9 months of support.
    
    It is unreasonable to say that some other choice one makes
    automatically makes one liable for support; such as, one signed
    an organ donor card. Deciding to donate your organs upon your death
    should not make you liable to support one of these cases. 
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

	By request, I will try to present some background on how the
	Supreme Court made their decision. This is a somewhat long reply. 
	It is an attempt to condense about 50 pages of Bob Woodward's 
	book, "The Brethern", which I still recommend. Anything that 
	follow that is in brackets [] is taken directly from that book, 
	except that the book refers to Burger as "The Chief", and I 
	trancribed it as Burger. I tried not to correct the many biases 
	in Woodward's text as I condensed it, but will not claim complete 
	success.

	Please remember I'm no Woodward, and I'm trying to condense 
	about 50 pages worth of material here.

	[Douglas had long wanted the Court to face the abortion issue head 
	on.] He felt that the laws in most states, which prohibited or
	restricted abortions, were infringements of a woman's liberty, which
	[he felt, included the right of a woman to control her own body.]

	However, Douglas concluded that there would be no way to construct
	a majority opinion for this position.  There were two cases before
	the court, (Doe v. Bolton and Roe v. Wade) but the issues of those
	cases were more juristictional than sweeping abortion cases.

	[Since Powell and Rehnquist still had not been sworn in, the cases
	were going to be decided by a seven man Court. Burger, Stewart, White
	and Blackmun seemed firmly opposed to taking an expansive view of 
	the range of civil cases that could be brought to federal court,] so
	it looked like a 4-3 defeat.

	In one case, an inexperienced advocate before the court 
	focused on the constitutional right to an abortion, unaware that
	the court was focusing on jurisdictional matters.

	[Stewart pointed out that there were several threshold questions to
	be dealt with first, including the jurisdictional issue. 
	
	Blackmun felt the oral arguments were poor, that the abortion issue
	deserved better representation.

	Blackmun was a former counsel to the Mayo clinic, and sympathized
	with the doctor who was interrupted in medical practice by the state.

	Stewart thought the question was too political for the Court to 
	decide, but thought Douglas could show that the laws [inhibited the
	doctor's ability to to exercise his best judgment.]
	
	At the next conference, the case of Mitchum v. Foster, a case 
	involving a Florida adult bookstore was decided 4-3 in favor of
	Federal jurisdiction. The juristictional issues were identical to the
	abortion cases. [Suddenly, unexpectedly, the Court found itself faced
	with the underlying constitutional issue in abortion cases. Did women 
	have a right to obtain abortions?]

	Burger was in favor of upholding the laws, [but didn't cast a clear 
	vote. White voted to uphold. Douglas, Brennan and Marshal strongly 
	in favor of striking down the abortion laws on broad grounds of 
	women's constitutional rights.]

	[Stewart and Blackmun in favor of striking down at least portions of 
	some laws, if only on narrower grounds of professional discretion.]

	Burger argued that they were difficult cases, that no one could tell 
	how they'd come out until the opinions were drafted, and they might 
	need to be reargued after Powell and Rehnquist were sworn in.

	[Brennan and Marshall counted the vote at 5 to 2 - Douglas, Brennan,
	Marshall, Stewart and Blackmun for striking the laws; Burger and
	White dissenting.]

	But Douglas thought it was only 4-3, figuring Blackmuns vote was 
	uncertain.

	Blackmun wanted a limited ruling.

	White thought Douglas, Brennan and Marshall voted for striking, with
	himself, Stewart and Blackmun for upholding,and Burger not voting
	but leaning to uphold.

	Blackmun was the key.

	When the assignments came, Burger assigned Blackmun to write the 
	opinion. Douglas was furious, being the senior member of what
	he felt was the majority. By tradition, the Chief Justice assigns
	the write of the opinion if he is in the majority, otherwise the
	most senior Justice in the Majority assigns a justice to write
	the opinion. So Douglas thought that it was his job to assignment
	the writer of the majority opinion. Burger insisted that 
	the voting had been too complicated, and that the cases would [stand
	or fall on the writing], indicating he still felt the cases should be 
	re-argued. Douglas considered that the assignment to Blackmun a stall
	tactic, as Blackmun was considered one of the slower writers. Also,
	any opinion that Blackmun produced was likely to scare off Stewart,
	and possibly, Blackmun might desert, himself. And in any event,
	such a major decision coming down with only a 4-3 vote was not
	a good idea.

	[Blackmun was both pleased and frightened by the assignment.] He
	felt that Burger assigned it to him because Douglas was too liberal,
	Brennan, the sole Catholic, could not be expected to take on the
	wrath of the church, and Marshall would take heat because he was the
	sole Black. Blackmun was also convinced that his medical background
	made him ideally suited to write the opinion.

	Douglas wrote a first draft in five days, but didn't circulate it. 
	[Though he would have much preferred that Brennan write the draft,
	he told Blackmun, "Harry, I would have assigned the opinion to you
	anyway."]

	Blackmun started his draft. Brennan sent around a draft which extended
	a previous Connecticut birth control case to support his views.

	When Powell and Rehnquist were sworn in, Burger tried to get the case 
	re-heard, further he wanted Powell and Rehnquist to vote on the 
	re-hearing. Powell and Rehnquist preferred not to take part in the 
	vote. Under several objections, Burger dropped the whole idea.

	Meanwhile Blackmun continued work on his draft. [Awesome quantities of 
	medical, as well as legal, books were regularly carried in.]
	He wanted an opinion that would be respected not only from a
	legal standpoint, but from a medical one as well.  [He was
	surprised to find that abortion had been commonly accepted for
	thousands of years, and that only in the nineteenth century had it
	become a crime in the United States. At that time, abortion had 
	been a very risky operation, often fatal. The criminal laws
	had been enacted largely to protect pregnant women.]
	But now abortion was relatively safe for the woman, safer
	than childbirth, and Blackmun felt that was a strong medical
	justification for permitting early abortions.

	Burger still tried to focus on the jurisdiction issue - if he won
	on this, the court would not have to decide on abortion at all.
	Douglas responded with a detailed memo, responding to each question,
	holding the majority on the jurisdiction question.

	After five months, Blackmun finally let one of his clerks read his
	work. He [had avoided extending the right of privacy, or stating
	that the right to an abortion stemmed from that right.] While he
	claimed a woman could get an abortion early in the pregnancy, [the
	reason,] [was lost in a convoluted discussion of the "viability of
	the fetus"]. Blackmun said that [as the length of the pregnancy 
	increased, the states interest in regulating or prohibiting abortions
	also increased.] Clearly, this draft could not be expected to settle 
	any Constitutional question.

	Stewart was troubled by this apparent creation of a new right without
	explaining how the right was arrived at, and wrote a concurrence,
	based on the Ninth Amendment. But Douglas joined Blackmun's opinion.

	But then Blackmun withdrew his draft. He claimed it was too late in
	the term, that more research was needed, and time was needed to
	incorporate the suggestions, and address the objections of the 
	dissenters. Douglas was again furious. He thought that with five
	firm votes, the decision ought to come down. He was also wary
	of Blackmun changing his mind, and of Powell's and Rehnquist's
	votes changing the majority. He was also worried because of his own
	health, that of Marshall, and Brennan, who was always threatening
	to quit, would give Nixon another appointee on the Court.

	Blackmun insisted he was a firm vote, and that they might pick up
	Powell's vote.

	They finally agreed to put over the cases - that is, to wait and
	decide them in the next term.

	Blackmun buried himself at the Mayo clinic, over the summer. [The
	right to privacy emerged explicitly.] But it wasn't absolute, but was 
	limited by the state's interest in protecting the health of the
	woman, and of the fetus. Since Doctors divided pregnancies into
	three stages, Blackmun decided to do the same. Abortions in the first 
	and second trimesters would be permitted. 

	Powell also worked on abortion over the summer. He concluded that 
	there was no constitutional guidance. But he was convinced he
	would vote to strike the laws.

	When the court returned in October, Powell joined the majority,
	Rehnquist the minority, making a 6-3 vote, and Blackmun's
	new draft was circulated.

	Brennan spotted a weakness - Blackmun's arguments hinged on
	prohibiting abortions until "viability". Brennan was worried that
	science might push this point back as medicine advanced.
	Brennan also noticed that Blackmun focused on the rights of the
	doctor, and of the state, and did not address the rights of the woman.
	He sent his ideas to Blackmun. 48 pages worth.

	Burger wouldn't join Blackmuns opinion as stated. Blackmun thought
	he could get Burgers vote, and came up with instead of one demarcation
	point, two - 

		[1 First 12 weeks; no state interest at all; abortions
		   unrestricted and left up to the medical judgment of the 
		   doctor.
	
		2 12 to 24 weeks; state interest arises and abortions
		  can be regulated only to protect the woman's health.

		3 After 24 weeks; state interest arises to protect the
		  potential life of the fetus.]

	While this allowed some restriction in the second trimester, it
	eliminated "viability" as an issue.

	Following suggestions from Marshall, he amended it:

		[1 For the stage up to "approximately" the end of the first
		   trimester, abortions would be left up to the medical 
		   judgment of the doctor.
	
		[2 For the stage after "approximately" the end of the first
		   trimester, abortion procedures could be regulated to 
		   protect the womans health.
	
		[3 For the stage after "viability", abortions could be 
		   regulated or even prohibited, to protect the fetus.
	
	[There was a certain reasonableness to the draft, some of them
	 thought (the justice's law clerks - tjk), but it derived more from
	 medical and social policy than from constitutional law. There was
	 something embarrassing and dishonest about the whole process. It
	 left the Court claiming that the Constitution drew certain lines
	 at trimesters and viability. The Court was going to make a medical
	 policy and force it on the states. As a practical matter, it was not
	 a bad solution. As a constitutional matter, it was absurd.]

	Stewart insisted on one more change - As far as the 14th amendment
	was concerned, a fetus was not a person, otherwise, two rights,
	that of the woman and the fetus would be in conflict. [When the
	Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 , abortions were 
	common enough to suggest that the state legislatures that had 
	ratified the Amendment did not  consider fetuses to have rights.]
	
	White dissented, saying that [Blackmun's scheme was pure legislation].

	Rehnquist dissented, on jurisdictional grounds.

	Burger finally joined the majority after much delay, but claiming
	that ["the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution
	requires abortion on demand".]

	On Monday, January 22, 1973, the decision was announced.


						Tom_K

    re: .264 & .265
    
    I think you missed my point with that little bit of SF. :-)
    
    I was not attempting to offer an argument in favor of ending abortions,
    I was simply creating a situation.  Suposing that *that* particular
    situation were "real", what would you (the pro abortionist) do,
    what would your argument, to save that life, sound like?
    
    Again, I am not asking for you to answer with the suposed argument.
     I proposed that situation in the hopes that a better understanding
    can be had concerning the position taken by many pro-lifer's.
    
    I 'know' that that 3 week old fetus is a human life and my proof
    is as concrete as 'yours' is in the situation and my conviction
    is as certain.  Meaning that I can, in no way, prove that what I
    know is fact, but it is fact none the less.  To the deepest level
    of my being I believe this.

    I knew that note would be kinda' confusing.  Does this help?
    jim
        

    	RE:  .268
    
    	OK, let's pretend that what you suggested in .258 is something
    	that can happen.  Let's say that we are able to look ahead to
    	see possible futures in regards to a single fetus that could
    	"save the world."
    
    	You said (in .258) that time flowed like a river, with many 
    	tributaries.  You mentioned two possible time lines (one being
    	that the fetus is born and grows up to save the world, and the
    	other being that the woman has an abortion and the world is
    	not saved.)
    
    	What makes you think that there are only TWO possible time lines
    	(after you had stipulated yourself that time is like a river
    	with many tributaries?)  In another time line, perhaps someone
    	else saves the world before the now-human child has a chance
    	to grow up and do it.  (Or perhaps the world is lost before
    	the child is old enough to find a way to save it.)
    
    	In another time line, perhaps the child does not survive childhood
    	(so the fate of the world is left in the hands of some other
    	time line that could possibly save us anyway, or not save us.)
    
    	If I (as a PRO-CHOICE advocate) knew that one possible time
    	line was for this one fetus to save the world, I would show
    	whatever evidence I had of this to the pregnant woman (and let
    	*her* make the decision about what would happen to her own body.)

    	I would do this because I would never (and could never) make
    	that kind of decision for another person.  The decision *must*
    	be made by the woman whose body is directly involved, (according
    	to the belief system to which I am committed as a PRO-CHOICE
    	advocate,) no matter how other people may feel about any individual
    	woman's decision.

re: .268:
    
    I 'know' that that 3 week old fetus is a human life and my proof
    is as concrete as 'yours' is in the situation and my conviction
    is as certain.

Then why are you wasting time with notes when you could be out working
for Mike Dukakis, who is committed to giving that 3 week old fetus
adequate medical care and nutrition, both before and after birth.

Martin.

re .271

>Then why are you wasting time with notes when you could be out working
>for Mike Dukakis, who is committed to giving that 3 week old fetus
>adequate medical care and nutrition, both before and after birth.

	Assuming the mother decided to not kill the child first. Meanwhile
	the Duke would be allowing our defenses to deteriorate to a point
	where the Communists would take over and enslave the child.

				I'd rather live, and live free, thanks,

							Tom_K

    re .271, you say you'd rather "live free."  
    
    Apparently, living free is a condition you think only men should
    have.
    
    Lorna
    

>    Apparently, living free is a condition you think only men should
>    have.

	Kindly explain the logic underlying that conclusion.

					Tom_K

    	Preface:  I'm not a regular reader of this file, so this may have
    been discussed elsewhere, although a brief scan hasn't revealed where
    that might be.  Sorry if that's the case.

    	My wife participated in the pro-choice demonstration last Saturday
    in Brookline.  She was mostly encouraged by the reaction of the vast
    majority of bypassers.  There will be a much larger demonstration this
    coming Saturday, Oct. 29, also along Beacon St. in Brookline.  The main
    time for the demonstration is 9:00-11:00 am.  Certain blocks will be
    assigned to people from specific cities and towns, so you may wish to
    contact the Mass. Coalition for Choice first.  A large turnout can
    negate the effect of the anti-choice loonies, as it did this past
    weekend.

    	The coverage of the past weekend, at least in the Globe, was not
    terribly enlightening.  I think they were expecting some Atlanta-style
    fireworks that didn't materialize, and they certainly under-reported
    the pro-choice demonstration.  (I believe that the Globe, like all
    major Boston media, is too scared of the Catholic powers-that-be to
    report fairly.)

    	So, this weekend will be a good chance to stand up for what you
    believe.

    			David

    re:  .277
    
    I AGREE! 
    

    <--(.277)
    
    Thanks, Marge.
    
    						=maggie

    re .277-.279

    	I'm not sure if that series of responses was triggered by my use of
    the word "loonies" in .276, but if it was, I apologize.  My use of the
    word was based on the extremist tactics used in Atlanta recently, and
    not to disparage the mental condition of anybody who disagrees with me.

    			David

    The Nashua telegraph had a fairly positive item on the pro-choice
    demonstration, with quotes about "breaking the back" of the
    "Operation Rescue" type groups.
    
    				Steve

    Surgical abortions are no longer necessary.  
    Drugs are available today and are being used in other parts of the 
    world that make abortions obsolete.  American women do not have the 
    same choices that French and Chinese women have because certain
    political elements are keeping them from having that choice.

    Under a Bush administration we are certain to lose what few rights we have
    managed to obtain so far.  I think I'm going to vote Libertarian.


This was taken from today's Boston Globe.  


"The French drug company Roussel Uclaf yesterday pulled the world's first
abortion pill, RU-486, off the market, citing antiabortionists' 
opposition to the drug.  Until yesterday, the drug was on the market in France
and China and was expected to be available soon in the Netherlands, Britain,
Spain and the Scandinavian countries.

The drug blocks the hormone progesterone, needed for maintenance of 
pregnancy, and is about 95 percent effective in terminating pregnancy when used 
with the hormone prostaglandin in the first two months.  Woman's groups 
and family planning organizations hailed the drug as a safe, effective
alternative to surgical abortion.

Company officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the firm had
received threats of boycott against all of its products, especially from the
US if the drug was released for use in the United States.

Dr. Arlette Geslin, Roussel's director of medical relations, said that the
drug's safety was not the issue underlying the company's abrupt decision
not to market in the US.  

Roussel Uclaf's decision to halt distribution of RU-486 is a tragic display of
cowardice, a shocking blow to women around the world, Tyrer said.  The
company buckled to political pressure exerted by a small but vocal minority.

Where is the morality in robbing women of a drug that is not only safe and
effective in early pregnancy but could also be usefull in treating breast 
cancer, glaucoma, Cushing's syndrome and ectopic pregnancy? Tyrer said.

Statistics from the World Health Organization and the Washington-based
Worldwatch Institute indicate that 200,000 women worldwide die annually after
illegal surgical abortions.

So far, the only other abortion-inducing drug tested in humans is epostane,
which also blocks progesterone.  A recent article in The New ERngland Journal
of Medicine said epostane is safe and effective but its manufacturer, Sterling
Drug Inc. of New York said yesterday that it has no plans to market it.

Susan Tew of the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York said that 'this may well
be a significant setback.  The safe and successful use in France and China
could have helped open the way for subsequent availability of RU-486 in the
United States."

    	Has anyone ever considered a counter-boycott, boycotting the
    	company if they *don't* release it?

This article was taken from the editorial page of the Boston Globe several
weeks ago.


"Pills and Parallels"

"The painful emergence of an abortion pill- licensed by France and China and
soon to be available in Sweden, Britain and the Netherlands - has much in
common with the introduction of the birth control pill.  Once again, the
importance of the reproductive health of women is obscured by groups who oppose
any medical means to govern fecundity.

Historic parallels between the two pills are remarkable in the extent to which
American pharmaceutical companies fear political and religious backlash against
the new abortifaciant, just as they did 30 years ago against the contraceptive. 
Such fears about "the pill" turned out to be groundless, as they should about
they abortifacient.

To test the waters of social acceptance, the contraceptive pill was first
presented as a medicine for menstrual regulation, a legitimate use but not the
pill's primary purpose.  The same ruse - menstrual regulation - is being used
today to try to gain approval of the abortion pill, known as RU486, in areas of
the world where it is not licensed, such as the United States.

The birth control pill, a synthetic form of progesterone (the hormone that
prepares the womb for pregnancy) hoodwinks a woman's system into acting as if
it were already pregnant.  RU486 does the reverse.  It deactivates the hormone 
of pregnancy so that if conception occurs, the womb will not be remain ready.

In the 1950s, America's mightiest drug companies did not dare to market the
contraceptive pill, fearing they would become the target of boycotts over the
"immorality" of birth control.  The identical fear now - of a vast boycott
threatened by the National Right to Life Committee over the "immorality" of
abortion - has cowed the pharmaceutical industry.  No United States company is
seeking federal permission to market RU486 as an abortifacient or for any other
medical purpose.

Yet, research finds RU486 is amazingly effective in treating a number of
reproductive disorders, as well as in combating certain forms of breast cancer
and in easing the birth process.  As an abortifacient, it is simpler, safer and
far less expensive than surgical abortion; and it is wholly private, a matter 
of a prescription between a woman and her doctor.

The presumed power of antiabortion grups is upsetting, says Dr. Irving Spitz of
the National Population Council.  It should be challenged.  When the G.D.
Searle company finally plunged ahead with the marketing of the contraceptive
pill, it experienced no adverse public reaction.

History's lesson is that society was way ahead of politicians, federal agents
and socio-religious groups in its acceptance of the birth control pill.  Today,
Americans widely approve the option of abortion; the earlier, the better.

In a pluralistic society, the views of one group should not foreclose choices
for others.  The pharmaceutical companies should stand up for American women's
right to state-of-the-art medicines and make RU486 an available choice."



Unfortunately, they did not.  American women lose once again.
Mary

    There are two discussions of this abortion pill in Womannotes Version
    One.  And they can be found at notes:
    
    256:  Swedish Abortion Pill
    733:  Safer Abortions, But Not For You
    
    -Jody
    

    re: .285 (Mary)
    
    
>Unfortunately, they did not.  American women lose once again.
    
    	Mary, I'm a bit confused.  My next-door neighbor told me
    	last week that her doctor (reluctantly) prescribed an
    	abortifacient for her.  Mind you, her circumstances are
    	a bit unusual... the prospective father was already
    	married (to someone else), she has already had several
    	abortions and feared the additional scar tissue would
    	render her fertile, and conception would only have 
    	occurred 24 hours before her doctor visit.
    
    	   Anyway, she said the doctor reluctantly prescribed the
    	pill for her, warning her that it would make her 'deathly
    	ill for a couple of days.'  I don't know that it actually
    	had this effect on her (or that she actually took the pill
    	for that matter).
    
    	   But this would seem to indicate that some doctors ARE
    	distributing this pill (if my next door neighbor is to be
    	believed, that is... and that might be stretching it).
    
    	   So what's the skinny on this pill, anyway?  Is it available?
    	Are all prescriptions of the illegal variety?  I'm confused.
    
    	- Greg

re .287

    Could your neighbor's doctor have prescribed a
    "morning-after" pill for her?  I know the morning-after pill
    was widely used on my college campus several years ago, but I
    don't remember exactly how it works.  But the morning-after
    pill isn't new in the U.S.

    -- Linda

    Greg,
    
    From your description, it sound like your neighbor was prescribed
    what is commonly referred to as a "morning-after" pill.  This is
    a concentrated dose of estrogen taken over, I think, a couple of
    days.  Its effect is to prevent (again, I think--it has been a number
    of years since my personal experience) implantation of the fertilized
    egg.  The medication must begin within 72 hours of sexual intercourse
    and is generally only prescribed after a cursory check of the cervical
    mucus indicates that impregnation is a possibility (i.e., that the
    woman has ovulated within the past day or two).  The efficacy of
    the treatment depends directly on the length of time which has elapsed
    since intercourse--after 72 hours implantation has probably occurred
    anyway if impregnation has occurred.  The concentrated dosage of
    estrogen has some serious side effects, including severe nausea.
    There is also statistical evidence of an increased risk of cervical
    cancer.  Hence, the clinic I went to was understandably reluctant
    to prescribe this treatment, and their policy was to NEVER prescribe
    it more than once.  The prescription was provided only with a strong
    lecture about responsible birth control. 
    
    The "morning-after" pill is not the same thing as the abortion pill.
    The abortifacient can be used within the first two months, if I
    am not mistaken, and therefore is used to induce an abortion long
    after implantation has occurred.  I don't know of the side effects
    of this kind of dosage of <was it testosterone?> and prostaglandin.
    Does anyone else know?  I do know how ill the estrogen made me for
    several days (definitely not a nice experience).
    
    
    Pat
    

    re: .288 & .289
    
    	   Sounds like you two have hit the nail on the head.
    	The symptoms you described match those she described,
    	and the timeframes are consistent as well.  Thanks for
    	the info.
    
    - Greg

    
    I heard this on the radio at noon today -
    
    The French company has reversed it's decision and now says it will
    produce the pill.  No details were given to explain the change.

    
    	On NPR this morning, it was mentioned that the French company
    has been ordered by the French government to produce the abortion
    pill.   Perhaps this way the government will take the heat from
    the 'pro-lifers', instead of the manufacturer.
    
    						Alan.

    
    i also caught some of the aforementioned news quips at lunch today...
    seems the government is part owner of the drug company, and as
    such ordered it to start production again.  They declared it was
    to important/needed to let protests stand in the way---since it
    tested safely, and seems to work well.
    
    Maybe someday it will make it to the states, and much of the
    hoopla surrounding "choice" will die a natural death as folks
    need not know who is/isn't pregnant or is/isn't aborting....
    lets hope!!
    

    	RE:  .294
    
    	Heard on the news last night that both 'Pro-Choice' groups
    	and so-called 'Right to Life' groups expect a huge fight
    	over trying to get the abortion pill accepted by the FDA.
    
    	However, both groups *also* know that there is the potential
    	for an ENORMOUS black market business for the pills in the
    	U.S.A. (because women who are determined to make their own 
    	choices will be willing to go to extraordinary means to make 
    	it happen.)
    
    	We'll have the pill, one way or the other.

From the Boston Globe, Sunday October 30, 1988:

QUIZZING QUAYLE

In Illinois last week, an 11-year-old reporter for the PBS show
"Children's Express" asked Quayle, "If I was sexually molested
by my father and become pregnant, would you want me to carry
the child?"
Quayle said yes, adding that having the baby would not ruin
her life. "I would like to see ther baby have the opportunity to
find a home or be put up for adoption."

Last Saturday my daughter Greta and I went to the Pro-Choice demonstration
in Boston.  It was her idea she had never been to a demonstration before
and she was really quite upset with the Operation Rescue people and wanted
to do something.  There were over 3500 people lined up along Beacon Street
with signs supporting the Pro-Choice stance.  There were no arrests (as far
as I know) and the Operation Rescue people never showed up though there
were a few anti-abortation people speaking to the demonstrators.

The real issue is the lack of media coverage.  Greta had been reading in
the Boston papers about Operation Rescue for the past few weeks and so
she figured that a demonstration  of 3500 people would also get the same
attention by the press.

The Boston station Channel 7 on the 11:00 news had a story -

	"About 2000 people from Operation Rescue were arrested
	in city from Providence Rhode Island to some where in Iowa."

There was about 3 minutes of film from the arrest of the Operation Rescue
people in Providence and about 3 seconds about the demonstration in Boston.
All they showed was the front of the Clinic - OH yes there was another
minute or so of two/three women in front of the Clinic saying the Rosary.
BUT no were was there the size of the turn out expounded upon.  It was
mentioned that (Lt.) Governor Murphy proclaimed Saturday as "Stand up for
Choice Day" or something like that.

I realize that just last week I stated that I was going to be read only
for awhile  because I needed to sort somethings out in my life - Well

	The Personal is Political

The following is not to flame at anyone nor is it to be self-righteous on my
part.

		***  Political Endorsement Follows ***

	I do not see how anyone who believes in a woman right to
	choose could do anything but vote next week for Mike Dukakis.
	He has stated over and over that he personally does not believe
	in abortion but that he REALLY feels that it is up to the individual
	woman to decide not the state.  Bush has all but stated that he
	wants to make abortion for any reason against the law and that
	someone will go to jail for performing them.

		THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT WOMEN'S LIVES ARE IN DANGER

		WE WON'T GO BACK TO THE DAYS OF COAT HANGERS

Not only do Pro-Choice people have to vote but we need to make sure that
others know who and what we are voting for - That the issue of abortion
by choice is not just the issue of Radical Strident Feminist BUT that it
is an issue of keeping government out of our bodies.

_peggy

		(-|-)
		  |

			To eliminate the need for abortions women
			would need to stop having sex with men except
			when they wish to conceive.  BUT do women have
			this CHOICE????

RE: < Note 183.297 by METOO::LEEDBERG "set hidden" >
    
I was at the Pro-Choice protest, also, and I'm just incredibly
discouraged by the lack of press coverage. There were thousands
of people out there in the cold for hours, people out there because
they heard about the event and cared enough to come. We got negligible
coverage on local news stations, yet when the "pro-lifers"  go to
churches, get people to sign up (and also "train" them in the 
churches), and then bus them into another state
to protest (they bussed Mass. parishoners into Providence, RI on 
Saturday), it's treated as though it's some kind of major force among
the American public, when in fact, they were recruited from church
groups and then bussed in--it wasn't a movement by the people, it was
simply a lot of work and hussle by their leaders.

The Globe did have a good-sized story on the front page of the local
news section. But I have noticed that two weeks ago when the local
protesters were in action, the Globe had a mini-story on the front page
directing readers to the detailed story inside the paper. The Pro-choice
protest, however, had no reference on the front page. Perhaps that's
the price we pay by operating within the law. :-)

Re:< Note 183.299 by ANT::ZARLENGA "Sorry, this car is full!" >
   
Thanks for letting me know about the situation in RI. I used
to live there, so I was very interested in the situation. 
Being without police protection that whole time could have been
very dangerous; that's an aspect of the situation that I never thought
of. From what I saw on the local (Boston) news, the
police there were working very hard that day.

I had always assumed that they got some kind of permit before
having these protests. In retrospect, that was extremely naive
of me--if they had permits, they'd have had to specify which clinic
they'd show up at. 

Do you remember what the ProJo (Providence Journal-Bulletin) had to say
about it?

Thanks.

    Have any of you ever known anyone who had an abortion in desperation
    with a coathanger?  Joking aside, I have.  A girlfriend of mine
    had an abortion with a coathanger at the hands of a butcher in
    Brockton.  He let her out of his office within an hour afterward
    and she proceeded to walk home.  On the way she hemoraged and died
    in the doorway of a storefront.  She bled to death.  
    
    Please give us the right to have abortions for our own choices.
    If you don't there will be more deaths as women will seek table-top
    butchers to have their abortions done once more.  
    
    

	re .302

	So if someone goes to shoot someone with a gun, and the gun
	explodes and kills them both, we're supposed to feel sorry
	for the attacker? I just don't understand...

					Tom_K

    
    
    RE. 304
    
       How DID you find that analogy relavent to 302!!??
    
    There MUST be a thought process taking place there that is AT
    BEST difficult[for me] to follow! 

Obviously, those who see abortion as murder will perceive UOB's story very
differently than those who see it as personal choice.

Get the picture?
	Mez

re .305

	Perhaps a better analogy would be as follows:

	Person X hires person A to kill person Z. Person A plants a
	bomb in Z's car. X and Z get into the car and the bomb goes
	off, killing both X and Z. Should we feel sorry for X?
	I think not.

	In both cases, one person hires another to kill a third person,
	but the hired killer ends up killing both. 


						Tom_K

    I read "Cider House Rules" and enjoyed it as a novel.  
    
    A friend of mine did not enjoy it because she is opposed to 
    abortion.  I did not see abortion as being the main focus of 
    the book, but it is one important part of it.
    
    I was glad for the doctor who was willing to perform abortions
    in a safe, clean environment and willing to risk his practice because
    he believed that women had the right to them!

    After considerable thought and argument, we have concluded that .304
    does not clearly violate any of the rules of Digital or this file, and
    so it has been unhidden again. 
    
    						=maggie 

    I personally deplore what I perceive as Tom's insensitivity to Gina's
    friend's death.  I would argue that it does him no credit, and little
    to advance his cause.
    
    						=maggie 

re .311

	And I personally deplore what I perceive as insensitivity to Gina's
    friend's baby's death. 
					Tom_K

Naral is putting out a call by sending a letter from Joanne Woodward. She says
she played a woman who had a coathanger abortion, and discussed the horror.
Somehow, a real story hits me more.
	Mez

    I hate to go further into a rat hole but here goes:
    
    Would you feel sorry for the person in this situation:
    
    A woman shoots someone in defense of her life and the gun explodes
    and kills them both.
    
    A woman shoots someone in defense of her life and her families and
    the gun explodes and kills them both.
    
    

    its too bad that some persons do not see the value of a womans life
    and places the fetus/embryo before it.  If some percieve that the
    woman has no rights and must bear the fetus dispite the threat of
    death, my feelings are that they indeed are accomplices in the possible
    death of the woman.  
    Yes, I speak from my past, as I have said before, my mother died
    when I was 7 years old, she died of a ruputred uterus. She's dead.
    Does that qualify me to have strong feelings on the right to choice?
    personnally, my determination to give my mothers granddaughter 
    the option to abort a fetus then die, grows stronger daily. 
    
    vivian

    Abortion has always been a very difficult topic for me.  I have
    come down, somewhat uncomfortably, on the pro-choice side.
                       
    As far as I am concerned, there is only one real issue.  Is the
    fetus (embryo, baby, whatever--choice of language can be powerful)
    at any given time a part of the women's body which she has the right 
    to control, responsibly or irresponsibly as she chooses?  Or is it 
    an independent human life with the rights of any human life and the 
    woman just has the misfortune/fortune of being responsible for it?
                        
    If it's the former, there's no question--in my opinion--that _no
    one_ else has any business making any decision for that woman. 
    End of debate.
                                                 
    If it's the latter, of course it's not so simple.  If it _is_ a human
    life, abortion is equivalent to murder.  Ending the fetus's life
    to save the mother's is clearly a matter of self-defense.  And this
    is where I become very uncomfortable with a couple of the pro-choice
    arguments often used.                              
                                                       
    One is the "return to coat hanger days" argument.  I am not insensitive
    to the desperation that goes into such a decision or the horror
    around illegal abortions.  But I don't think "people will do it
    anyway" is a valid reason for legalizing anything.  And granted,  
    illegal abortions result in many deaths.  But if you believe that  
    the fetus is also a human life with the rights of a "born" person, 
    then making abortions illegal saves many more lives than it causes.
                                                        
    Another argument I have trouble with is the "(I personally think
    it's wrong, but) you can't start legislating morality."  Bull.
    Our laws against murder and robbery are the legislation of morality. 
    IF the fetus is a human life, a law against abortion is simply a
    redefinition of the law against murder.            
                                                       
    -Tracy
                                                       
                                                       
    

    Re:  .302
    
    Yes, I do know someone who, in despair, chose abortion, in that
    same manner.  She is real, not a paperback story, and so is the
    child to whom she gave birth and consequently gave up for adoption.

>    But I don't think "people will do it
>    anyway" is a valid reason for legalizing anything. 

Isn't that why alcohol is legal? (Sincere question - any references?)

	Mez

    Many years ago, in one of his editorials, John W. Campbell Jr.
    wrote that in the Middle Ages, people had a hard time separating
    cause and effect, and that nowadays, people had a hard time
    separating potential and actual.  (Then he went on to talk about
    I-forget-what.)
    
    This potential vs. actual situation is the cause of the abortion
    controversy.  For myself, sapience is such a central part of being
    human (with sentience as its precursor) that I really cannot
    believe that something with a brain smaller than my fingertip,
    with no more functionality than that of a lizard, is human.
    I accept that some such creatures will become human.  (Well, that's
    big of her, the reader thinks sarcastically.)
    
    Datum:  Although abortion was a crime in this country from 1830
    until (in most states) last decade, it was never classified as
    a homicide.  Therefore, those who claim that abortion is murder
    are not echoing an opinion held under law.
    
    						Ann B.

    On a slightly different tangent, I heard something on the radio this
    morning which really caught me be surprise.
    
    The subject was "pregnancy doping."  Apparently, the side affects of
    pregnancy during the first few months can be extremely beneficial to
    women who participate in sports.  Some of the benefits described were
    increased strength and endurance, and general cardiovascular
    improvements, among other things.
    
    What as alluded was that some women atheletes might be getting pregant
    and allowing the pregnancy to progress until about 3 months time and
    then having it terminated.  Thus, pregnancy was being used as a form
    of "natural steroids."

If you heard the same report I did, it was a "columnist" on NPR's
Morning Edition news show.  The commentator, and ex champion weightlifter
and current university professor didn't actually give evidence that
pregnancy doping actually happened, but seemed to be quite angry that
women were trying to excel athleticly, even if they lose so much body
fat that they stop menstruating.  (Many world-class marathoners discovered
they were pregnant when their reaction to  their training changed, they
couldn't assume a skipped period was a signal.)  The columnist gave
as an example Ingrid Kristiansson, who ran the world's fastest marathon
a year or so after giving birth.  He didn't mention Joan Samualsson, whose
training hasn't gone well after she became a parent.

I got the impression that the report was more of an anti-woman tirade
than a report on pregnancy doping.

Pregnancy doping is alleged to work for two reasons: the hormones that
"loosen" a woman's pelvis to ease the birth process also loosen tight
tendons, making the runner more flexible.  Also, there are changes in
blood transport and blood volume that help aerobic capabilities.
At the 1984 olympic marathon trials, two women ran in advanced stages
of pregnancy (5-6 months).  Both finished in quite acceptable times
(faster than I can run, in any case), and neither had any problems with
their pregnancy, delivery, or child.

Martin.

	RE:  .308  
    
	> Perhaps a better analogy [for a woman who tragically dies
    	> because she sought to have a choice] would be as follows:

	> Person X hires person A to kill person Z. Person A plants a
	> bomb in Z's car. X and Z get into the car and the bomb goes
	> off, killing both X and Z. Should we feel sorry for X?
	> I think not.

	> In both cases, one person hires another to kill a third person,
	> but the hired killer ends up killing both. 

	    Well, Tom, it took a lot of guts for you to show exactly
    	how little value it is possible to place on women's lives (and 
    	what kind of price that some people think women deserve 
    	to pay for seeking our freedom.)
    
    	    Still, I guess it is hard for me not to be shocked at the 
    	mere *thought* that there are people in our culture who
    	would rather see women DEAD than free...

Reprinted (without permission) from the Boston Globe, November 3, 1988


Quayle ventures into gynecology, suggests curettage for rape victims

  Bartlett, Tenn. - Republican Dan Quayle, who has proclaimed himself the 
"Dr. Spin" of his vice presidential campaign, yesterday ventured into
the specialty of gynecology.

  Quayle , a longtime opponent of abortion, seeking to clarify his 
views on procedures for rape victims, seemed to approve of dilation and
curettage, a surgical procedure that involves scraping of the uterine wall.

  Quayle dealt with the question while talking with reporters after
addressing a high school rally.  The question arose in connection with
Quayle's response to an 11-year-old correspondent for "Children's
Express."  He said that even if she were raped by her father, he would
oppose abortion and favor carrying the fetus to term.

  Earlier this week, following that statement, Gov. Michael S. Dukakis
sharply criticized Quayle for favoring government intervention in what
he says is a personal choice for a woman.

  "In the case of a rape," Quayle said yesterday, "hopefully they would
seek medical attention immediately and, under normal medical procedures,
a life and conception would not even begin.  But once a life takes place,
my personal preference if for that life to be able to continue.  However,
that personal opinion is not the law of the land.  The lady in that
particular case would have a choice."

  Quayle defined the "normal medical procedure" as a "D and C," or
dilation and curettage, but specialists interviewed yesterday said that
a D and C is almost never part of postrape medical care.  D and C
involves scraping the uterine lining or wall.  Because a fertilized egg
takes four to seven days to travel to the uterus, it would be senseless
to do a D and C immediately after a rape, they said.

  An emergency room nurse at Boston City Hospital who cares for rape
victims yesterday said a rape victim would be give a "morning-after"
pill, a low-estrogen birth control pill, in multiple doses to prevent
conception.  "A D and C would not even be considered," he said.

  Both opponents of abortion and supporters of a woman's right to 
abortion yesterday took issue with Quayle's medical knowledge.  "He is
very confused and he is also showing his ignorance and lack of sensitivity
for women," said Tamar Abrams, director of communications for the 
National Abortion Rights Action League.  "Doctors do not perform D and C's
on women who have just been raped."

  Dr. John C. Willkie, president of the National Right to Life 
Committee, the leading antiabortion group, said: "The routine thing is 
not to do anything.  A developing baby doesn't enter the womb until it's
a week old.  If you scrape the womb before, you're not attacking the baby."

  Willkie excused Quayle's confusion.  "We allow a politician that kind
of leeway" and said the the important thing was that Quayle opposed 
abortion.

  Asked whether a woman impregnated through rape should be expected to 
bring the fetus to full term, Quayle said, "Right after the rape, you
would not even get into conception and a life would not even be formed.
That's my understanding from a medical point of view.  And therefore, 
you wouldn't even get into the life being in being."

  He added that a D and C in a case in which a conception had taken place
"is a perfectly normal procedure that I would not put into the category
of abortion."

  Pressed to further explain his position further, he said, "I think 
that reporting of the rape, going into the hospital and, right after that,
having a D and C, I think is a perfectly normal response and one that I
would not put in the category of abortion."
  

    I can't believe the sugar-coated world that you all seem to live
    in.  My girlfriend had no choice. There was NO welfare, there was
    NO place she could go.  She was afraid to tell her parents.  She
    was 17 years old.  The boyfriend she had been going with dumped
    her when she told him that she was pregnant.  She worked after school
    and saved her money up.  Abortions were only $50.00 then and done
    under secrecy.  There was no choice in the 50's.  Bad girls had
    sex and good girls if they did "it" didn't talk about it.  Times
    have changed.  People have become soft.  Especially women.  Welfare
    is too easy to come by.  
    
    

    	RE:  .330
    
    	Well, it's quite refreshing to find someone who thinks that
    	the women in this conference are too sugar-coated.  :-)
    
    	All this sweetness and light must be giving you a toothache,
    	eh, Gina?
    
    	Well, I will personally make an effort to stop being so overly
    	polite, wishy-washy (and will try to come up with a few strong
    	OPINIONS on some things.)
    
    	Maybe it would help if I ate nails for lunch today...  :-)
    

    After watching Bush last nite talk about how is for the
    death penalty, a question came to mind.  How can one be
    for the death penalty, yet be against abortion?  Doesn't
    quite make sense to me.
    
    Also, if we as a society care so much for unborn babies,
    then why don't we have funerals for babies who die in
    miscarriages?
    
    I may not have read all the notes in this string, so if
    this has been brought up before, forgive me.  I've been
    a read-only noter here for quite a while and now with
    soapbox down...well..... ;^)
    
    Charlotte
    

>    After watching Bush last nite talk about how is for the
>    death penalty, a question came to mind.  How can one be
>    for the death penalty, yet be against abortion?  Doesn't
>    quite make sense to me.

Bush realizes that punishing a woman for having an abortion would be blaming
the victim.  Of course, that is a liberal concept, but I'm sure Bush's
puppeteers could find a way to blame it on the Governor of Massachusetts.
(See last week's Sunday Doonsbury.)
    
>    Also, if we as a society care so much for unborn babies,
>    then why don't we have funerals for babies who die in
>    miscarriages?

I would suspect that some couples have funerals for late miscarriages
and stillbirths.  This would, however, depend on one's religious
tradion.  For example, in Japan there are temples dedicated to
aborted/miscarried potential souls.

Martin.

        Lets assume that Roe vs Wade is reversed.  Also assume that
    state A outlaws abortions, but state B doesn't.  Would a person
    in state A be able to prevent another person in state A from going
    to state B to get an abortion?
    
    ASP

    re .332
    Some American women DO have funerals for miscarriages.  A friend of
    mine miscarried late in her first pregnancy, and she had a funeral for
    the unborn son.  Most of us thought this was a little bit wierd at the
    time, but we shared Peggy's grief.  For some reason, it was very
    important to her and her husband to have the first child be a son, so a
    couple of years later when they had a healthy baby girl, she was still
    disappointed (I'm not condoning her attitude, of course, but it was a
    very real concern for the couple involved). I do not think they would
    have had a funeral for it if the miscarriage had been a daughter.
    She didn't have a funeral when she miscarried again a couple of years
    after the birth of their daughter, but I do not know if that was a boy
    or a girl (and I'm sure not going to ask - if it had been a son, it is
    surely still a very sore subject for them - so I assume they lost
    another daughter).  She can't ahve any more children now.
    
    re: last several about Mr. Quayle's ideas on rape victims:
    I guess that even the most anti-choice people sometimes balk at the
    human slavery involved in forcing a raped women to bear the child!
    Thanks goodness there is some sanity left in the world of politics (and
    thank goodness that election day is next week, and after that we won't
    have to listen all the politicians for another two or four years....).
    
    There is a big difference between miscarrying a wanted child and being
    forced by law (or by self-righteous protesters who don't understand) to
    bear an unwanted child, even the child of a rapist!
    
    /Charlotte (this is as political as I get...I must be reading too many
    newspapers or something - no doubt I will return to my usual apolitical
    self after next Tuesday - I hope!)

    Before I begin, let me state for the record:
    
	I AM PRO-CHOICE! 
    
    	[Pardon my shout, but what follows may tend to obscure my bias]
    
    
    I've followed along here and have come across some reasoning that
    appears inconsistent on the face of it and hoped that the some of
    the community might be able to help me reconcile the seeming
    contradictions: 
    
    1 - For those in favour of capital punishment, yet anti-abortion:

    	IF abortion is the pre-meditated ending of a human life and
    	is therefore punishable, why then is capital punishment not
	considered so?  In recent times I've read of little incidence
	of states killing in the heat of passion.
    
	IF the child/fetus has a right to life and society is obligated
    	to its upkeep in the form of taxes if need be, how then can
    	capital punishment be touted as a savings to the tax-payer as
	criminals are so woefully expensive to keep.
    
    
    2 - to those who oppose abortion, but will condone it in cases of
	rape or incest:
    
    	IF it is _not_ slavery for a woman to carry an un-wanted child
	to term and the child should be given every chance at life,
    	how is rape different?  If the child is the victim in abortion,
    	isn't aborting a child that resulted from rape REALLY punishing
	the victim?  It was not the child's fault it got conceived.
    	[Puleeze don't think that I think the woman is at fault either,
	because I do not, do not, do NOT!]
    
    3 - In cases of the mentally challenged mother
    
    	If killing is killing and society will not condone it, how can
    	abortion for eugenic reasons be condoned?
    
    
   Thank you for your time,
    
      Ann
    
     [...now where did I put that nomex suit...]   
    
    
   
    

    re .336:
    
    >    1 - For those in favour of capital punishment, yet anti-abortion:
    >
    >	IF abortion is the pre-meditated ending of a human life and
    >	is therefore punishable, why then is capital punishment not
    >	considered so?  
    
    The only way I can think of to reconcile the two is that abortion
    is killing the innocent, capital punishment is killing the guilty.
    The felon has had a trial by his peers and been judged guilty and
    found subject to a predefined punishment; loss of life. The fetus
    has not been tried and convicted of any crime. It is being sentenced
    to death by the whim of another. The convict's sentence has been
    determined by due process under the law, the fetus' has not.
    
    The problem I personally see with this rationalization is that it
    totally ignores the woman's right to control her own body. 
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

re .336

    I only feel up to answering the first of your questions;
    hopefully someone else will be able to discuss the others
    also.

>   	IF abortion is the pre-meditated ending of a human life and
>   	is therefore punishable, why then is capital punishment not
>	considered so?

    As a society, we believe that we have the right to judge
    people for their actions, preferably via the court system
    rather than the lynch mob.  We also believe (a little less
    whole-heartedly) that we have a right to punish, perhaps even
    kill, those we have judged to be "evil", "anti-social", a
    "menace" to society, "immoral", etc.  In general, we support
    killing when it seems to be for the good of our society, even
    if the individual killed is not "bad," as happens in warfare.

    No one I know seems to believe that an unborn child, or even
    a child a few years old, can be "evil" etc because the child
    has typically not had a chance to learn our social mores.  So
    we do not view aborting an embryo in the same category as
    killing a "bad" adult for a "punishable offense."  We could
    conceivably support the aborting of an embryo for other
    reasons, just as some of us can support the killing of an
    enemy soldier under certain conditions.

    As an individual, I don't necessarily support all of the
    arguments I've stated above, but I got the feeling you were
    asking for answers to why our society does things this way.

    -- Linda

Ellen Goodman's column in today's paper made an interesting point about
abortion (this is from memory).  She writes that, like the anti-abortion
demonstrators, she too wants the clinics shut down.  But, she points out,
there are two ways to do this: one is by making abortions illegal and
the other is by creating a society where every pregnancy is a wanted one.

Martin.

    The thing I find difficult to understand is why RU486 (the
    abortifacient pill) is not available in this country as it is in
    many countries.  This pill aborts a fertilized egg BEFORE it develops
    into a fetus.  Do the anti-abortionists believe that this is murder too?
         
    mary

re: 340:
    This pill aborts a fertilized egg BEFORE it develops
    into a fetus.  Do the anti-abortionists believe that this is murder too?

That would be consistant with the belief that human life begins at
conception.

M.

    The reason that the pill is not currently available in the US is
    due to pressure from antiabortion groups, according to the
    news articles I have read.
    
    Bonnie

    Are you saying that a mass of cells without any brain or organs
    is a person?  Perhaps I am confused as to exactly what constitutes
    "human life".  Why do you feel that human life begins at conception?  
    
    Why are not the individual sperm and egg considered human life?
    It is only a matter of chance and circumstances that they do not
    have the opportunity to meet in conception, is it not?  
    
    Perhaps any human cell that has the potential to clone another individual
    should be considered as sacred as the fetus.  Does it matter if
    a person does not believe that human life begins at conception?
    Or are we all to adhere to the wishes of those of you who do 
    believe this concept (a concept that some of us find to be ridiculous). 

    Re Bonnie
    
    Thats what I am having a difficult time accepting.  
    The microscopic mass of cells that had yet to develop organs
    or resemble a human creature is not considered to be a human by
    a lot of intelligent people.  That some people do consider it as
    such is fine for them.. but why force their viewpoint on everyone?
    Mary

    Mary, I agree with you entirely. Perhaps you should ask this
    question in Mennotes...as I think there are few people in this
    conference who would argue with you,  but there are some strongly
    outspoken antiabortion writers in the other file.
    
    Bonnie

    Perhaps its time for us to stand up to these people who insist that
    we all believe as they do.  
    
    Mary

    Marge, I'll try and tackle that from home tonite. If you'd like
    send me mail as to how much/little info you want.
    
    Bonnie

    re .342, Bonnie-
    
    > The reason that the pill is not currently available in the US is
    > due to pressure from antiabortion groups, according to the
    > news articles I have read.
      
    Permit me to expand upon this a bit, Bonnie.  New drugs in the U.S.
    must go through an incredibly complicated testing and certification
    cycle to gain approval from the Food and Drug Administration, this
    being the result of numerous laws passed to protect us the end-users
    from unscrupulous drug companies, in the wake of such disasters as
    Thalidomide.  The cycle takes years, has no guaranteed approval,
    and is very expensive, so it is understandable that a company 
    threatened with such a politically difficult issue would hesitate 
    to introduce such a drug in this incredibly litigious country.
    
    So, faced not only with the FDA approval hurdle, but the threat
    of boycotts and litigation from the quote pro life endquote faction,
    I can see why a private business would hesitate to even try to make
    this drug available.  I still hope they do try it, though.
    
    DougO

    re .347:

    {while Bonnie works up a really good description, here's a simplistic 
    answer to your question}       
    
    The issue of chromosomes is easy: Everybody (human) has 46. Ovae
    and sperm each have 23. When the sperm penetrates the ovum, the
    chromosomes combine to a grand total of 46. This is why sperm and
    ovae are not considered humans per se, while the fertilized ovum (the
    blastocyst) is.
    
    Chromosomes are bundles of DNA, the "blueprints" (but more accurately;
    the "recipe") for the organism.
    
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
                          

    Doug,
    
    What you say is correct in so far as the testing program is
    concerned. However, the long testing program does not deter
    drug companies from trying to market other potentially high
    income producing drugs. My feeling is that the antiabortion
    pressures are the main thing working against any American
    firm trying to introduce the drug.
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie, in my reading the long testing program has indeed been a
    deterrent to the introduction of several new drugs, even those with
    potential for high income.  The Wall Street Journal regularly issues
    sarcastic editorials squarely at the FDA for their bureacratic ways,
    especially in the case of approvals for medicines intended to fight
    life-threatening illnesses; the WSJ has the opinion that *SO WHAT*
    if these drugs have side effects, the patients can choose to chance
    the side effects rather than the sure and certain lingering death
    awaiting.  The FDA is responding to these pressures...I guess I'm
    rambling.  I fully agree with your feeling "that the antiabortion
    pressures are the main thing working against any American firm trying
    to introduce the drug".  Note that my .349 didn't take issue with
    your previous note; I said I merely wanted to expand upon it, to
    point out that such pressure is surely the capstone upon a very
    significant financial risk which the company is already worried
    about taking...are we aligned yet?
    
    DougO

This may well be more about fertilization and the first stages
    of development than most of you want to know. I can go into
    more detail if you wish, as long as I have my reference books
    handy.
    
    Bonnie
    
    
   The ovum develops in the ovary coming to maturation in
a bubble or sac of fluid called a follicle. Part of 
this process involves the first stage of a special kind
of cell division called meiosis. In meiosis the number
of chromosomes in the cell are cut in half. This involves
two separate divisions which produce one egg/ovum and three
polar bodies which are discarded by the body. This pattern
of producing one egg which is quite large compaired to other
cells and three discarded polar bodies is common to all
animals. In the male, the original cell or spermatogonium
produces four spermatozoa or sperm cells. In the case of
both the egg and the sperm the cell has half as many chromosomes
as the normal body (somatic) cells.

When the ovum is ovulated i.e. bursts from the follicle into
the abdominal cavity it has completed only one of the two
divisions needed to produced the reduced number of chromosomes.
The cell is then picked up by the fallopian tube (the whole area
is covered with tiny hair like cell extensions called cilia which
set up currents which sweep the ovum into the fallopian tube.)
If the ovum is not fertilized it divides no further and eventually
breaks down and is expelled from the body. (The time period in which
an egg remains viable is given as 24-48 hours and a sperm cell
about the same.)

One ovum is .14 cm in diameter (the size of a period on a typewritten
page) and a box 3 inches square would hold all the eggs need to
replace the present population of north america. (a little trivia here).
The ovum is surrounded by a capsule, the zona pellucida.

Fertilization occurs in the fallopian tube. The ovum is surrouned
by masses of spermatozoa. Apparently the combined efforts of the
secretion of enzymes by the heads of the spermatozoa is needed to
dissolve the membrane around the egg so that one spermatozum can
enter. Once one cell has passed into the egg the membranes thicken
and no other cell can enter. Once the spematozum enters the egg
it drops its tail and the nucleus (which carries the chromosomes)
moves to the egg nucleus. The stimulation of the penetration causes
the ovum to undergo the second division of meiosis casting off
the last polar body. The egg nucleus then combines with the sperm
nucleus forming one cell with twice as many chromosomes as an egg
or sperm - or the same number of chromosomes as a body (somatic)
cells.

The meeting and union of the egg and sperm takes place in the upper
third of the fallopian tube. If the egg reaches the uterus without
being fertilized it will be too deteriorated to be fertilized.

Sexuality is determined at the time of fertilizaton. All the ova contain
the same chromosomes...in humans 22 autosomes and 1 sex chromosome.
In the female the sex chromosome is designated as and X. A female individual
will have 2 X chromosomes in every somatic cell of her body. A male individual
will have 1 X chromosome and 1 Y chromosome in every body cell, so half
of his spermatozoa will carry an X and half a Y chromosome. Therefore,
an X bearing sperm will produce a female zygote (fertilized egg) and
a Y bearing sperm will produce a male zygote.

Once fertilization has occured the zygote will divide. The smaller
cells are called blastomeres. Each cell receives the full component
of chromosomes (half having come from each parent.) The cells come
to resemble a mulberry - a solid ball of cells, and is called a
morula. Division continues to occur and the sold ball becomes
a hollow ball or blastula. At this point there has been very little
increase in size. The blastula, which is made of many cells is only
a little larger than the original ovum. It is at this stage - about
6 days after fertilization that attachment to the uterine wall occurs.
At this point there is not even the beginning of differentiation
into tissues much less organs. The blastula is simply a hollow ball
of similar cells. (Tho there has been some pysiological differentiation
by this time.)

re Why force one view on others:

	For the same reason society forces others to obey prohibitions
	against unjustified killing. In short, to protect the innocent
	and defenseless. 

Re Why is a 'mass of tissue' considered a person?:

	If it isn't human, what is it? If it isn't living, why do
	you have to kill it? How can a male fetus be considered part
	of a female body?

					Tom_K

    re:.344
    
    There's obviously some intangible factor that makes a human a
    human -- in religious circles, it's referred to as a soul --
    and given that the factor itself can't really be nailed down,
    when that factor enters into the equation can't really be nailed
    down either. So it's just as reasonable to assume that this
    differentiating factor comes into being at conception as at any
    other time.
    
    Nota bene: This viewpoint doesn't necessarily reflect my own.
    
    --- jerry

    in re .357
    
    Until about the third month all fetuses look essentially female
    externally. During the fourth month the genital folds form the
    male organs in a XY fetus.

I apologise for not having time to "catch up" on this busy note, so I hope I'm
not bringing up a topic that's already been covered and resolved.

I'm very concerned about what I heard were the side-effects of this drug.  I
heard that it may not be that effective, and that if it doesn't do the job,
the fetus will develop horrendous deformities that will may Hitler's
experiments seem like practical jokes in comparison.  I also wonder how
effectively we can keep the drug from being used by people during later stages
of pregnancy when the results would almost certainly be extremely harmful to
the mother and produce terrible results if the fetus actually lives and comes
to term.


				Mark

    Mark,
    
    According to the article in "Time" magazine, the abortion pill
    is 99% effective.  Also according to "Time" magazine, there is
    not much in the way of side effects.  Ditto on source, the pill
    is only supposed to be used in the first [two?] months of
    pregnancy.
    
    Addressing someone else 'way back,
    
    Oddly enough, the terrible side effect of thalidomide (It was
    marketed as a non-addictive, non-overdosable) sleeping pill.)
    was that it was an ANTIabortificant; it prevented the spontaneous
    miscarriage of fetuses with "horrendous deformities".  (It is
    now used to cure leprosy.)
    
    						Ann B.

    The genetic makeup is determined at fertilization...when the
    chromosomes from the egg and from the sperm combine to make
    a new nucleus. All the further cells come from divisions of
    that nucleus (with the addition of nutrients to make the cells
    grow of course.)
    
    Bonnie

    re .363:
    
    But Marge, the development of the human from the fertilized egg
    involves alot more than just the genes contained within it. For
    example, whether or not the fetus is born morphologically a male
    or female depends just as much on the hormones it is exposed to
    in the womb as the X-Y combination of genes within it. 
    
    The genetic makeup of the embryo does not *completely* determine the
    final result. Yes, at the moment of conception, there is a set of
    human genes resident in the ovum, but I would not call it a Person.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

       re .363:
       
       Marge, your interpretation of the biological point in time at
       which we become human seems reasonable.  Would you agree that
       other intelligent people, looking at the same information, might
       come to other, reasonable conclusions about when we become human,
       from a biological point of view? 
       
       --Mr Topaz 

    There are many possible biological "place-holders" at which one could
    conceivably (no pun intended) argue that human life begins - ovulation,
    ejaculation, conception, first cell-division, cell differentiation,
    emergence of visible organs, capability of independent survival (with
    current medical technology), capability of independent survival
    (without medical aid), birth (amongst others). I cannot see any one of
    these stages (except conception) as being fundamentally different from
    the previous one, in a way that would enable anyone to definitively
    distinguish "independent life as an individual" from "part of the
    mother (or father)". Obviously (I hope) it is agreed that this landmark
    is reached somewhere between ovulation and birth. Accepting this as a
    given, there seem to be three operationally defensible positions: 
    
    i)		Any "tampering" at all is immoral
    ii)		"Tampering" after ovulation/ejaculation is immmoral
    iii) 	Anything goes up to birth
    
    I believe that the first position is that adopted by the Roman Catholic
    church. The medical and legal systems are quavering somewhere between
    positions (ii) and (iii). I personally think that a legal definition
    of "life" that is related to current technology is ludicrous.
    
    As a scientist, I would like to know when the fundamental feature that
    defines a human - development of the neocortex - occurs; My personal
    opinion is that, prior to this development, a foetus is _capable_ of
    becoming a human, but it isn't human yet. Up until a foetus develops
    a noecortex, the same rules as we humans apply to the "lower" forms
    of life (eg reptiles, arachnids, molluscs etc.) should apply. Quite
    what those rules are should be the subject of another note.
    

    And, if I'm not mistaken, that was the/one of the major factor(s)
    that influenced the Supreme Court decision.
    
    						=maggie

    Note 54 in rahab::soapbox is on abortion. I would encourage
    women who feel strongly on this issue to take a look at it.
    Most of those who have currently entered notes in the string
    are anti-abortion and male.
    
    Bonnie

       re .371:
       
       > Most of those who have currently entered notes in the [Soapbox
       > topic] are anti-abortion and male. 
       
       Thank you for the gratuitous summary.
       
       In fact, based on a quick run-through of the topic, the following
       opinions were expressed:
           
           6 males were anti-abortion (that is, for overturning Roe v Wade
           
           6 males and 1 female were pro-choice
       
           3 males said they thought abortion was wrong, but should
             not be made illegal (which is actually pro-choice, I suppose)

           1 male and 1 female were against abortion on-demand, but said
             that abortion would be ok in certain instances (rape, etc.) 

       --Mr Topaz

    Sorry, Don, you are correct. When I first looked at the topic
    that was the impression I got, and I hadn't been back in to
    check. I stand corrected and appologise.
    
    Bonnie

    Re: .322
    
    Saying that *this* pro-choicer is "insensitive to everyone except
    the born." isn't absurd at all. In fact that's a pretty good summary
    of my attitude, except I'd substitute "viable" for "born".
    
    Now what happens to the claim that "pro-lifers" are "insensitive to
    everyone except the unborn"? I realize that such a claim is hyperbole,
    but it sure feels to me like pro-lifers ignore the woman. Pregnancy
    is DANGEROUS, abortion is SAFE. In no other circumstance are people
    REQUIRED to risk personally death or disability for a specific other
    individual. (With the possible exception of the draft, which I would
    prefer not to discuss here.) Fire, Police, Paramedics, and so on
    do risk their lives for others, VOLUNTARILY.
    
    If I see someone dangling off of a ledge, and could save them at
    some risk to myself, IT IS A PERSONAL CHOICE whether I do so or
    not. I would fight a law *requiring* me to help.
    
    I would extend the same choice to pregnant women.
    
    	-- Charles
    
    P.S. I try to limit myself to one abortion argument a year. I guess
    I've failed for this year. See you next year.

I find it interesting that the Reagan administration is encouraging
the Supreme Court to consider the Missouri ruling as a way to revisit
the Roe vs. Wade decision.

It seems like a mistake to me (a "mistake" from the Reagan administration's
point of view - I'm pro-chice) if they want to overturn Roe vs. Wade.  
Why not wait until George Bush has stacked the court a few years from now,
*then* make an assault?  

Is it ego?

Or are they that confident in the result?

OR...might it just be that some in the Reagan administration believe that 
Bush is still a moderate at heart?

Opinions?  

.jim

    
    re. .375
    
    I too, thought the timing was interesting...but then again the
    administration asked last year too, so maybe they are just
    'trying again'.
    However, with 2 new 'conservative' judges just appointed within
    the last year, they may think they can get it overturned with
    no problem.
    Who knows...I'd never attempt to understand political thinking.
    (hmmm  is that an oxymoron??)
    

re: .375

What makes you think this is the last/only time they're going to try?

M.

    {I was thinking of starting a new topic for this question, I think
    377 replies is too many for one note, but I couldn't come up with
    a way of making it sufficiently different to justify it}
     
    Suppose Roe v. Wade was overturned today, what would happen? Abortion
    would not automatically become illegal, each state would have to
    draft legislation. That legislation could then be challenged, with
    the hope of putting abortion rights on a little firmer Constitutional
    grounds than was done in Roe v. Wade.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

	Supreme Court Justices are firm believers in the principal
	of precedent. I've read of a number of cases where a justice
	would rather have voted one way, but voted the other because
	he did not want to go against a precedent decided in a previous
	case. Even some fairly 'conservative' justices have voted 'liberal'
	because there was existing precedent, and they wanted the Supreme
	Court decisions to reflect a continuity of solid legal reasoning, 
	rather than the a body that reverses itself depending upon the 
	politics of the current members of the court. When major decisions
	are reversed, it is more likely based upon solid legal reasoning, rather
	that a simple change of membership. I remember reading of one justice 
	who said he would be a sixth vote for a reversal in a particular case,
	but would not be a fifth (deciding) vote.

	Every abortion case that is decided adds to the layers
	of precedent that will have to be stripped away with legal
	thinking and argument showing how the precedent was either
	wrong, or not applicable. So if you want to reverse a precedent,
	it is best to wait until you know you have a case and court that
	will get a majority of votes and then some.


						Tom_K

    
    I believe I heard speculation on NPR recently that the reason the
    Reagan administration had chosen to ask the court to review Roe
    vs. Wade now is because in this "lame duck" period, noone is really
    accountable in government for anything that happens. If they'd waited
    for Bush to take office, then he would have political liability for 
    this move.
    
    BTW, I really liked the argument a few notes back that pointed out
    that pregnancy is risking your life for someone. I never thought
    of that. It is a very valid argument. Then again, let's face it.
    Most anti-choice people are not concerned with protecting lives.
    They are concerned with protecting the existing power structure.
    
    Roberta
    
    

    	RE:  .381  Marge Davis
    
    	>> Most anti-choice people are not concerned with protecting
    	>> lives.
    
    	> I suppose it is the "anti-choice" contigent who are killing
    	> their young [SIC]?  Since you are clearly pro-choice,
    	> please do not misrepresent the motivation of those who
    	> are not.
    
    	Surely you have been paying attention enough to know that being
    	pro-choice does not mean that one necessarily chooses (or
    	recommends) any certain course for a woman experiencing
    	an unplanned pregnancy.  Pro-choice advocates fight for
    	the woman's right to make her own CHOICE (which is why
    	the movement is called 'pro-choice.')  If you hadn't heard...
    
    	Since you are obviously a so-called 'pro-lifer,' please
    	do not misrepresent the actions OR motivation of those
    	of us who are pro-choice.
    
    	In regards to the comment about pro-life people not being
    	concerned with protecting lives, please tell me this:
    	Why is it that when 'pro-life' people are asked how they
    	feel about all the women who will die from illegal
    	abortions when/if their freedom of choice is taken away
    	from them, the comment from  many so-called 'pro-lifers'
    	is to say flat out that they don't care IN THE LEAST how many
    	women die?
    
    	Also, when you tell 'pro-lifers' that fetuses will NOT
    	be saved (because women will find illegal means to have
    	their choice,) why do they say that it isn't important 
    	if fetuses are not saved (and that laws against abortion
    	are important enough if all they do is to make a 'moral 
    	statement')?
    
    	If so-called 'pro-lifers' don't care if women die (and if they
    	don't care if fetuses are not saved by laws against
    	abortion,) then whose lives are they supposed to be
    	so in favor of as to label themselves 'pro-life'?
    
    	If you would like quotes supporting the "I don't care
    	at all if women die" philosophy of pro-lifers, I'd be
    	glad to point them out to you (along with quotes from
    	pro-lifers regarding how little it matters if fetuses
    	are actually saved.)

I didn't mean to generalize, so let me rephrase what I said.

Granted there are many "well-meaning" people who are anti-choice. They
honestly believe (however naively) that denying women this choice will save
lives. 

However, based on my observation of the people who are actively propagating
an anti-choice legal agenda on the state and national level, it is clear
that these people are not the least bit concerned with life, but rather
with maintaining the existing (biased against women) power structure.

Obviously if these people were concerned with life, they would be in
favor of increased benefits to help feed all the children they want to 
help create. But they are the same people who are manifestly in favor of 
slashing or eliminating entitlement programs. 

Obviously if these people were concerned with life, they would not espouse
the lie that all these babies can be put up for adoption, when at least
for minority children, there are no families to take them all. (Of course a 
typical white male anti-abortionist cannot worry about minorities, once 
they're born.)

Basically, then, the motivation of these people is to maintain the 
status quo - to keep women powerless and poor by burdening them with
children they cannot take care of.

Roberta

    re: .384
    
    ...and making the *women* "pay" for indulging in sex!
    
    
    Incidentally, there is _one_ group of pro-lifers whom I respect as being 
    genuinely "pro-life" because they are consistent (where I am not):  those
    who are opposed to abortion and ALSO opposed to capital punishment
    and ALSO are conscientious objectors/pacifists re: war. 
    
    I have heard of _very_few_ who hold all these views simultaneously!
    
Nancy

    Good luck meeting Suzanne in Soapbox Marge.  The system is down
    so much, you might have better luck discussing the issue by carrier
    pigeon_:-).  I haven't been able to get in for several weeks.
    
    A point I'd like to make is that the role of mother is no longer
    one that society can take for granted.   If society does not value
    motherhood, the contributions and the sacrifices that women make in 
    that regard, then women will stop having children.  
    
    Being a mother is a difficult and rewarding endeavor for those who 
    deeply desire children, those who do not want to be mothers find
    little support to help them today.  
    
    The question of abortion is very much an issue of modern technology.
    It is modern technology that allows us to know when brain waves
    are present.  Its modern technology that allows us to know the details
    of the gestation process.  Its modern technology that gives us a
    choice as to whether or not we are emotionally equipped to participate
    in the process.  
    
    Motherhood has long been taken for granted by humanity.  It is a
    sign of the times that it no longer can be.  As long as there are
    women somewhere in the world who have this choice, there will be
    women else where working to get this choice.  I believe that the
    way to eliminate abortions is to value motherhood and children as
    much as we value stealth bombers.  Billions set aside for defense
    from largely (these days) non existent enemies, we have more than
    enough weapons to distroy us all, and so little for the safety and
    well being of the children.  
    
    Abortion will only be eliminated by changing our values, not by
    restricting choices.            
    
    Mary

    For those who are interested...soapbox is now available around
    lunch time and after working hours. There is a good discussion
    on abortion there, which I have been following.
    
    Bonnie

re .382

>    	In regards to the comment about pro-life people not being
>    	concerned with protecting lives, please tell me this:
>    	Why is it that when 'pro-life' people are asked how they
>    	feel about all the women who will die from illegal
>    	abortions when/if their freedom of choice is taken away
>    	from them, the comment from  many so-called 'pro-lifers'
>    	is to say flat out that they don't care IN THE LEAST how many
>    	women die?

	Because those who kill deserve appropriate punishment.
    
>    	If so-called 'pro-lifers' don't care if women die 

	You left out a qualifier: women who kill their babies

re .384

>	Basically, then, the motivation of these people is to maintain the 
>	status quo - to keep women powerless and poor by burdening them with
>	children they cannot take care of.

	No, the motivation is to prevent the killing of innocent babies.

						Tom_K
	

    re: .389 (Tom_K)
    
>	Because those who kill deserve appropriate punishment.
>	You left out a qualifier: women who kill their babies
>	No, the motivation is to prevent the killing of innocent babies.
    
    	   Tell me, Tom, are you ignorant or just a liar?  My guess
    	is that you are ignorant, mainly because I like to believe 
    	that most people do not lie (as a general rule).
    
    	   You may not be aware of the central motivations for the
    	pro-life movement, but that does not mean they do not exist.
    	A previous noter reflected the true sentiment of the pro-life
    	movement when she stated that it's underlying purpose was to
    	ensure the societal value of motherhood (as opposed to women
    	in the work force).
    
    	   It is unrealistic attitudes such as yours that give the
    	pro-life movement the black eyes it currently has, and which
    	will prevent the pro-life movement from gaining any significant
    	ground in the hearts and minds of the public.  Why don't you 
    	try *thinking* about the subject, rather than blathering your
    	witless rhetoric like a broken record.
    
    	- Greg

	RE:  .389
   
	>> Why is it that when 'pro-life' people are asked how they
	>> feel about all the women who will die from illegal
	>> abortions when/if their freedom of choice is taken away
	>> from them, the comment from  many so-called 'pro-lifers'
	>> is to say flat out that they don't care IN THE LEAST how many
	>> women die?

	> Because those who kill deserve appropriate punishment.
  
    	Oh, so you are the judge and jury for all women's conduct with
    	their doctors in matters regarding their own wombs.  Great.
    	How about if I take on that role for a minute:
     
    	If laws are passed against abortion, then pro-lifers will be
    	effectively murdering thousands of women by forcing them to
    	choose between their freedom and their lives.  Pro-lifers
    	will become killers and deserve appropriate punishment, don't
    	you think (especially since pro-lifers know full well that
    	their actions will lead to an increase in the number of maternal
    	deaths, both from abortion AND from birth, and they simply
    	don't care.)  Pro-life, indeed.
    
    	Altho, I can understand why pro-lifers don't care if women die.
    	Slaves who will not obey their masters are hardly worth
    	allowing to live in an efficient master-slave system.
    	It is clear to me (once again) that you would rather
    	see women DEAD than free.  I'm glad you are so open about
    	it.
     
	>> If so-called 'pro-lifers' don't care if women die 

	> You left out a qualifier: women who kill their babies

    	I didn't include that qualifier because it is a blatant
    	and offensive use of emotional phrasing to build a dishonest
    	argument.  In other words, it is an out and out lie.
    
	>No, the motivation is to prevent the killing of innocent babies.

    	The motivation is to reach into the wombs of millions of women
    	across America and to make the most important decisions of their
    	lives for them. 
    
    	Just remember, when you are busy devaluing women's lives (and
    	reducing us to baby-making machines while not caring in the
    	least whether we, as individuals, live or die...)  The lives
    	of your wife/other_woman_relatives will be considered just as
    	meaningless and worthless by other pro-lifers.  I hope for your
    	sake that no daughter of yours ever finds herself in such a
    	desperate situation that she seeks choice and then ends up
    	dying because her choice is illegal.
    
    	Would you be as cold about your own wife/daughter/niece/cousin
    	dying in that situation as you are about the rest of the women 
    	in America?  
    
    	Will pro-lifers keep score and rejoice at all the women they've
    	killed in the next decade, I wonder...

Note 183.389                    
EVER11::KRUPINSKI 

>	Because those who kill deserve appropriate punishment.
>	You left out a qualifier: women who kill their babies
>	No, the motivation is to prevent the killing of innocent babies.

Look pal, whether you like it or not, abortion is _not_ the "killing of
babies".  The killing of babies is called infanticide.  A baby isn't a 
baby until it is born.  

If you are concerned with the killing of babies though, you might want to 
find out why America has one of the highest infant death rates of the 
industrialized nations.  If you are concerned with the well being of babies 
you might want to do something about taking care of the babies that do exist 
instead of focusing on babies who don't exist.

Mary

re .390, .391

	Damn! You're on to us. We tried to keep it a secret, but now that
	you've exposed it I might as well tell all. Even as I write this,
	pro-lifers are being organized into "life squads". Their mission:
	As soon as Roe v Wade is overturned, they will fan out across 
	America to kidnap unsuspecting women, impregnate them, and hold
	them at gunpoint until they give birth. 

re .391

>    	Just remember, when you are busy devaluing women's lives 
>    	reducing us to baby-making machines while not caring in the
>    	least whether we, as individuals, live or die...)  The lives
>    	of your wife/other_woman_relatives will be considered just as
>    	meaningless and worthless by other pro-lifers. 

	I'll remember that, should I ever busy myself in that undertaking.
	Although I don't know why anyone would busy themselves in such a 
	thing.


					Tom_K

Tom_K, you lose alot of credibility with me when you indicate that
a woman who dies because of an illegal abortion "gets what she 
deserves".  You sound so heartless.

Debess

	No more heartless than a women who kills her baby.
	Why is demanding that a killer receive just punishment be
	considered heartless?

						Tom_K

	RE:  .395
  
       	> No more heartless than a women who [insists on being
    	> allowed to make decisions about her own body.]
    
    	Sorry, I just couldn't requote your lie again.  
    
    	> Why is demanding that a killer receive just punishment
    	> be considered heartless?
    
    	So now you not only don't CARE if women die, YOU DEMAND IT????
    
    	Perhaps your scenerios about rounding women up at gunpoint
    	(to do 'whatever') are closer to your true feelings than you
    	realize.
    
    	The ghoulish obsession with pictures depicting what you consider
    	death have gotten to you more than I thought.

    Re -1   Right on, Suzanne!  I wish I had said that.
    
    -Dotti

    Women who kill babies go to jail for murder Tom.  Abortion is not
    killing babies.  A baby is NOT a baby until it is born.  It may
    be convenient to ignore this fact of life but it doesn't change
    it.  One who is truly concerned about the well being of babies
    would work to improve and preserve the quality of life of existing
    babies.  You appear more concerned about babies that don't exist
    than you are about babies that do exist.   Some people would interpret
    that kind of attitude as being hypocrisy...  the feigning of beliefs,
    feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess.  You can
    no longer force your opinions onto other people.  Those days are
    gone forever.  Get used to it.
    
    Mary

    Re .393
    
    	>As soon as Roe v Wade is overturned, they will fan out across 
	>America to kidnap unsuspecting women, impregnate them, and hold
	>them at gunpoint until they give birth. 
         
    
    Hmmm, from what I've seen, many of the so-called "pro life" men are the
    same ones that when they hear about a rape, say "she must have done
    something to provoke it (wore a short skirt, was out on the street at
    night, went to the wrong place, etc)"  Now I get it. Take such a
    strident woman, rape her (she deserves it, right?), then force her to
    either give birth or send her to prison (or electric chair).  That
    should keep them in their place. 
    
    Elizabeth

    I have a button at home.  It says,
    
    "Why do we kill people who kill people 
     to show that killing people is wrong?"
    
    
 Seems it applies to capital punishment, and also abortion being illegalized....
 (if, of course, you consider abortion "killing a person")
       
    Will the anti-choicers (pro-lifers?) who do not care about the women
    they are affecting (and the children they are affecting) put their
    money, time, effort, energy, and lives into nurturing and insuring a
    quality of life to the 1.6 million children who would be born annually
    if no abortions took place?  How can they demand that the women who create
    the embryo's that would otherwise be aborted devote THEIR money, time,
    effort, energy, and lives to children they cannot take care of properly
    (be the reason physical, monetary, or emotional). 
    
    note:  Even if it were a palatable thought to force pregnant women to
    bear unwanted children, I seriously doubt the adoption system in this
    nation could handle an extra 1.6 million children per year, 80% of
    which are non-white. (statistics from a recent article in US News
    and World Report, which I don't have a copy of, but it's a fascinating
    article).
     
    Pro-lifers who wish to take away women's right to abortion should
    show they care about ALL children, not just those who have not been
    born.  Become a big brother/big sister.  Give to shelters for homeless
    kids, street kids.  Work with the school system to develop better
    dissemination of birth control information so there will be no need
    for abortions (among even those who are 11, 12, 13 years old), take
    in foster children, help abused children, send money to foreign
    nations via Children's Funds.  THEN tell me how to run my life.
    And, of course, I still reserve the right not to listen - I don't
    think you'd like the way I ran your life either...
    
    -Jody
    

p.s.A good deal of the unpleasantness in this discussion hinges on people's
    varying opinion of what "murder" is, and of what constitutes a "human
    being".  Please be aware that very few people will change their
    minds when presented with an alternative viewpoint, as this is a
    highly polarized topic.

pps.I'd like to remark again that I think abortion is NOT a good thing.
    It is, in some cases, depending on the people involved, and the
    circumstances, better than having an unwanted child.
    

    
    	   What follows has been posted in SOAPBOX, but I felt it
    	deserved posting here as well, as it contains some significant
    	data on the subject.  Enjoy...
    
	   As many of you probably expected, I have taken it upon
	myself to do some research on this subject.  What follows
	are some excerpts from the book "Abortion and the Politics
	of Motherhood" by Dr. Kristin Luker.  The book is essentially
	about the abortion issue, and how it is entangled with other
	socio-political issues (such as the status/value of the 
	embryo vs the status/value of the mother, the role of religion
	in determining the political climate, the changing role of 
	the physician as technical/moral advisor, etc.)  I highly
	recommend it to anyone interested in the background of the
	abortion issue.

	   The author never takes a definitively pro-life or pro-choice
	stance, but rather includes analyses of interviews with the
	most prominent activists on both sides of the debate.

		   "Dr. Luker's comparison of women in the pro-choice
		and pro-life movements makes clear that the moral
		status of the fetus is not a trivial issue.  Beyond
		concern with the fetus, however, those committed to
		either side in the abortion controversy are deeply
		convinced that its resolution is a key to resolving 
		a whole set of struggles about distribution of careers
		and jobs in America.  The pro-choice women see the
		ability to plan childbearing as necessary to fulfilling
		their potential as human beings.  The pro-life women,
		in contrast, view pregnancy and childbearing as central
		to the lives of all women.  The right-to-life movement
		is an attempt to form a moral cartel to use state power
		to define the social role of women.  Dr. Luker shows that 
		this movement represents an attempt not to protect the
		fetus but also an attempt to ensure the family is a
		higher priority than career among women and that women 
		whose work is within the home are not accorded lower
		prestige than women whose work is all or partly outside
		of the home.  Dr. Luker is one of the first scholars 
		to investigate the rise of movements that seek to put
		the power of the state behind moral positions."

	   [From the Foreword by Brian Barry and Samual L. Popkin.
	The following remarks were drawn from the preface by Dr. Luker.]

		   "While the militants on both sides would have us
		believe that the abortion debate is actually very
		simple, such simplicity is both a necessity and a
		luxury for them.  A necessity because we must believe
		that the things about which we are passionate are either
		clearly good or clearly bad.  But because the belief in
		simplicity reduces any possibility of dialogue or learning
		or coming to terms with real human dilemmas, it is a 
		luxury that neither society nor the debate itself can
		afford."

	   [The 'simplicity' to which she refers is of the vain "the
	fetus is a child, therefore killing it is murder" in which the
	basic premise (the fetus is a child) is not accepted by both
	sides.  On the other side, an example of simplicity might be
	the viewpoint "It's my body, and nobody can tell me what to do
	with it."  Neither allows for any dialogue/learning.]

		   "For people deeply involved in the abortion issue,
		those differences of opinion, and the inability to have 
		anything  resembling a dialogue about them, are not
		serious problems.  They dismiss those who disagree with
		them as being either ignorant of the facts or perversely
		unwilling to admit the truth when it is presented to
		them.  More negatively, they see their most committed
		opponents as bigots, as people so deeply in thrall to
		some other interests (the Catholic church, or feminism,
		or "utilitarianism") that they are unable to think freely
		about the abortion issue.  It should be clear that such
		explanations preclude any real understanding of why
		people differ on this issue."

	   [One of the first arguments the book offers is fairly obvious,
	to me at least, that being that the status of the embryo has 
	always been ambiguous within society, as there have always been
	opposing viewpoints.  In Anglo-American common law it is certainly
	true that embryos have certain legal rights -- the right to 
	inherit property, for example,  But it is equally true that the 
	embryo must generally be born alive in order to benefit from
	them.  Thus, these rights are not invested in the embryo per se
	but are held in trust, as it were, until the embryo becomes a
	newborn child.]

		   "If the status of the embryo has always been ambiguous,
		as argued here, then to attribute personhood to the 
		embryo is to make the social statement that pregnancy 
		is valuable and women should subordinate other parts of
		their lives to that central aspect of their social and
		biological selves.  Conversely, if the embryo is held
		to be a fetus, then it becomes socially permissible for
		women to subordinate their reproductive roles to other
		roles, particularly the paid-labor force."

	   [This points out quite clearly the reason that so many
	people who enter the abortion debate do so on the grounds of
	the need for the second income.  Note again the link between
	the social role of women and the issue of abortion.  This is
	also the main reason that the debate went from the hallowed
	halls of medicine and acedemia into the public sector.  As
	women made it clear that they were to be a vital force in the
	workplace, they pushed this issue to the forefront and 
	became active in their support/opposition of various laws.]

		   "Prior to 1967, the abortion debate in California
		was conducted in a spirit of compromise and civility;
		professional men and women tied to one another by bonds
		of colleagueship and sociability endeavored to create
		a new compromise on abortion that they envisioned would
		provide the basis for a second century of calm.  But 
		their efforts failed.  Within a very short time, intense
		passions and moral concerns became central to the debate.
		A group of women who valued motherhood, but VALUED IT ON
		THEIR OWN TIMETABLE, began to make a new claim, one that
		had never surfaced in the abortion debate before this,
		that abortion was a woman's RIGHT.  Most significantly,
		they argued that this right to abortion was essential
		to their right to equality -- the right to be treated
		as individuals rather than as potential mothers."

	   [Another interesting point the book makes concerns an aspect
	that often shows up when draconian laws are sought as a solution
	to a not-universally-perceived problem... the black market (i.e.
	illegal abortions.  Since the black market is unregulated, there
	is no way to insure the quality of the service being provided,
	as is illustrated below.]

		   "There are several reasons why the deaths of [the
		women who died during illegal abortions] is seen as
		a tragic and pressing social problem.  First, deaths
		from the criminal abortions were unevenly distributed;
		poor women died more often.  Where there is a demand
		for a product or service that is normally illegal, but
		acceptable to some 'patrons', a black market emerges.
		Black markets -- whether in illegal drugs, Prohibition-
		era alcohol, or abortion -- tend to be what economists 
		call 'wealth-sensitive: well-to-do people can usually
		get a 'better' or at least safer product.  On the
		other hand, since it is hard to get reliable information
		in a black market, it is difficult for normal market 
		forces to squeeze out dishonest or dangerous producers.
		As a result, people risk being blinded by 'bathtub gin',
		or poisoned by additives such as strychnine in their
		illegal drugs, or disabled or killed by faulty medical
		procedure during illegal abortion.  Since there is 
		little 'quality control,' anyone who engages in the
		black market faces such risks; but because the market
		is wealth-sensitive, poor people face the risk more 
		often."


	   I think the statement made in the preface sums up the situation
	precisely.  This is NOT a simple issue, and adopting the notion
	that it is precludes any rational discussion on the subject.
	We must acknowledge that the question is not going to be resolved
	by application of moralistic absolutes where there is not universal
	acceptance of the morals in question.

	- Greg

	   When discussing abortion it is almost impossible to remove
	the topic of birth control from the discussion.  There are
	several reasons for this.  First, many of the groups that
	oppose abortion (pro-life groups) are primarily Catholic,
	taking their established morals directly from papal doctrine,
	which doctrine has historically been opposed to any interference
	with the birth process (including contraception).  Second, 
	those who see abortion as inherently wrong often point to the
	proactive solutions (contraception) as a means of completely
	avoiding the need for abortions.  Third, and probably most
	disturbing to the pro-life groups, is the common attitude
	that abortion is a viable means of birth control (of the
	contragestive variety).

	   When examining the relationship between birth control and
	abortion, I found a few bits on information that I thought
	worthy of passing along.  What follows was extracted from
	"Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood" by Dr. Kristin
	Luker.

		   "It is often argued that the birth control pill is
		responsible for much of the  women's rights movement.
		It is true that the pill had become the most commonly
		used marital contraceptive by 1965, and it had probably
		become a favorite method of birth control among unmarried
		women as well.  The pill (and later the IUD) gave
		American women, for the first time, a highly effective
		birth control method that could be used outside the
		context of sexual intercourse.   There are no formal
		studies on the matter, but the existence of a form
		of birth control that permitted women to approach
		sexual intercourse with almost the same degree of sexual
		freedom as men can not be underestimated.  On the other
		hand, we must remember that the founders of SHA (Society
		for Human Abortions) had begun to argue for women's rights
		to abortion by 1961, long before use of the pill had
		become widespread.
		   Perhaps the pill played a more indirect role in 
		encouraging support for abortion.  Mariano Requena has
		found that in Latin America the introduction of more
		effective contraception led to an INCREASE in the 
		abortion rate.He argues that after couples have made a
		commitment to lower fertility, they are less willing
		to tolerate mistakes when they occur.  In the United
		States, therefore, one could assume that the availability
		of the pill -- a virtually 100 percent effective
		contraceptive --would have created a population of
		people who had made important life commitments that
		depended on very high levels of fertility control."

	   [The commitments being referred to are more complex than 
	simply deciding whether or not to have a career outside the
	home.  They are, oddly enough, somewhat economic in nature,
	as the next section of text illustrates.]

		   "It is in a broad sociological and historical context,
		then, that one must understand the recent claims that 
		women have made for the right to control their own bodies.
		From time immemorial, children had been central to the
		society at large and to the kinship networks in which
		children played a vital role.  Until the modern era, a
		child usually represented a concrete investment in the
		future -- a potential 'marker' in marital alliances that
		could extend the resources available to the larger kinship
		network and as an active producer within the nuclear 
		family at an early age.  Where no centralized state
		existed, a large number of healthy sons had assumed 
		importance in police functions, and both sons and 
		daughters played important roles in supporting their
		parents old age.
		   It was only toward the end of the last century that
		the economic and social value of children -- and hence
		their numbers -- declined.  As children became increasingly
		excluded from the labor force and simultaneously expected
		to spend large parts of their childhood in school, the
		economic value of children declined and their emotional
		value increased.  Parents in virtually all urban, 
		industrialized countries chose to have fewer children
		and to invest more resources -- both economic and
		emotional -- in each individual child.  These events
		were the background against which the American birth rate,
		with the help of abortion, declined from an average of
		more than seven children per couple in 1800 to just
		over three in 1900.  And these factors undoubtedly
		account for the very visible presence of abortion in
		the nineteenth century.
		   The mobilization of certain women against abortion
		laws in the 1960s can be seen as the next step in this
		historical process.  In the twentieth century the value
		of children as economic producers in the family continued
		to be low, and the forces that made children economically
		'costly' -- their exclusion from the labor market and
		the extension of compulsory schooling -- continued to
		expand.  If the first abortion controversy was a 
		reaction to the declining economic value of large 
		families to nineteenth-century Americans, then the second
		abortion controversy can be seen as a reaction to the
		increasing economic cost of children to WOMEN in the
		twentieth century.  When women wanted control of their
		own bodies, they wanted control over the number and,
		more important, the timing of their births because an
		untimely or unintended birth (or even the threat of one)
		could have dramatic consequences for their lives."

	   So, we can see that the introduction of reliable contraception
	in society gave women the ability to become a dominant force in
	the work-place.  In order to establish equality between the sexes,
	they required a means of effectively controlling when pregnancy
	could have 'dramatic consequences for their lives'.  Of course,
	as the text notes, the decline of the economic value of a large
	family plays a very important role in determining when childbearing
	is an economically feasible option.

	   I think it also bears repeating that while the number of 
	children in the average household is declining (partially as
	a result of abortion) the 'investment' (education, rearing, etc.)
	in each child is greater, thus ensuring (or at least attempting
	to) a higher quality of life for those children.

	- Greg
    

	   The following article was extracted from the December 12, 1988
	issue of "Insight" magazine.  This outlines the sort of deceptive
	practices used by the pro-life lobby to achieve their goals.

		"CLINIC'S DECEPTIVE ADS VIOLATED TEXAS LAW"

		   "A clinic that counsels pregnant women not to
		have abortions violated state law by falsely advertising
		that it offered abortions, the Texas Supreme Court 
		as ruled.
		   The ruling upheld a 1968 jury verdict against 
		Mother and Unborn Baby Care of North Texas Inc. and 
		its principal, Charles Pelletier.  The corporation 
		operates the Problem Pregnancy Center in Fort Worth.
		A Tarrant County jury found that the center had
		advertised under the 'abortion clinics' and 'medical
		clinics' headings in the yellow pages.  When women
		arrived at the center, they were shown graphic films
		and counseled not to have the procedure.
		   'Sometimes they would lure them in by implication
		and by smoke and mirrors, but sometimes they flat-out
		said, "Yes, we do abortions here," says Deputy 
		Attorney General Steve Gardner, who helped prosecute
		the case.
		   Since the jury verdict, the center has abided by
		a court order to disclose the nature of its services
		up front, says Gardner, adding that the ads now run
		under an 'abortion alternatives' heading in the 
		telephone book.
		   The center is considering an appeal to the U.S.
		Supreme Court on grounds that its activities were
		protected forms of free speech and religious expression."

	- Greg
    

Point well taken Greg.

RU486 aborts before the zygote develops into a fetus.  Were this drug legal
in our country, much of the agony of the abortion question would be eliminated.
Pro-choice people would compromise and agree that abortions should not be
allowed after brain wave activity were present in those instances where
RU486 was inapplicable.

By insisting that "life begins at conception" the pro-life groups have 
eliminated the possibility of compromise.  The only way to counter-act
such a position and bring the issue back into balance is for women 
to return to the pre-technological position of.. life begins at birth.

The women of America can not allow the government to legislate moral
absolutes which are not universally accepted.   Religious institutions
should not be allowed to influence legislation while retaining their
tax exempt status.  That gives those special interest groups a political 
advantage in forming legislation without fiscal responsibility.

We must legalize RU486.  

Mary

    
    	   Since Catholics compose the vast majority of the pro-life
    	contingent (roughly 80% by some reckonings), it is interesting
    	to note that they have not always felt as they do today (that
    	an unborn fetus is a complete human being), and in fact were
    	quite tolerant of abortions until about 100 years ago.
    
	   I found the following reference in "Abortions and the
	Politics of Motherhood", chapter two (Medicine and
	Morality in the Nineteenth Century), page 13.  

	   	   "In the year 1100 A.D. this debate was clarified,
		but hardly in the direction of making abortion at
		all times unequivocally murder.  Ivo of Chartes, a
		prominent church scholar, condemned abortion, but
		held that abortion of the 'unformed' embryo was not
		homocide, and his work was the beginning of a new
		consensus.  Fifty years later, Gratian, in a work
		which became the basis of canon law for the next
		seven hundred years, reiterated this stand."

		   "In practice, then, Gratian's rulings, which
		remained intact until the nineteenth century, meant
		that even Catholic moral theology and canon law -- 
		which were, in effect, the moral and legal standard 
		for the Western world until the coming of the 
		Reformation and secular courts -- did not treat what
		we now call first trimester abortions as murder.
		(And given the difficulty in ascertaining when
		pregnancy actually began, in practice this tolerance
		must have included later abortions as well.)
		   "Nineteenth century America, therefore, did not
		inherit an unqualified opposition to abortion, which
		John Noonan has called an 'almost absolute value in
		history.'  On the contrary, American legal and moral
		practice at the beginning of the nineteenth century
		were quite consistent with the preceding Catholic
		canon law; early abortions were legally ignored and
		only late abortions could be prosecuted.  (In fact,
		there is some disagreement as to whether or not even
		late abortions were ever prosecuted under the common
		law tradition.)"

    	   So we can see that the development of the ideology
    	which states that fetuses are full-fledged humans is
    	relatively recent, and not at all historically consistent.
    	
    
    	   While it is true that the 'original' function of sex was
    	procreation, it has taken on a different role in the past
    	few thousand years.  Sex has become a communication media
    	these days.  It is used for expression of FAR more than the
    	desire to make a baby, as has been discussed before.  Thus,
    	in light of this change of purpose, one must re-examine the
    	basic precepts regarding the consequences of this change.

    	   Birth control, for example, provides a means of virtually
    	nullifying the reproductive aspects of sexual intercourse.  
    	If the birth control method being used (be it contraceptive
    	or contragestive) fails, it is unduly oppressive of society
    	to force them to 'accept the consequences', when clearly the
    	purpose of their sexual union was NOT reproductive.

    	   What purpose does it serve to force people to accept the
    	responsibilities and consequences of parenthood when they
    	clearly wish to avoid them?  Why do you wish to condemn
    	children to be born to parents who do not want them, and will
    	in all likelihood not provide them with adequate care?

    	   You may view it as a morally superior position to argue
    	for the rights of the unborn... perhaps you have not really
    	considered the matter very thoroughly.  Most people merely 
    	accept the 'lessons' they were taught in childhood, never
    	questioning the values that were programmed into them from
    	birth.  Most people assume that others have a similar set
    	of values.  To them, that is reality, despite any body of
    	evidence to the contrary.

    	   In my view the pro-life position is morally inferior.  It
    	creates a substrate of humans on whom an inadequate life is
    	forced (by virtue of not being wanted in the first place).
    	The pro-life argument is built in the assumption that the
    	fertilized egg is a complete human being, and in my mind this
    	is a completely fallacious assumption (as shown by biology,
    	and as inferred by the definitions of the "soul").  Thus,
    	the pro-choice argument seems morally superior to me.  It
    	is based on the assumption that the consenting adults who
    	engaged in sex (particularly the woman) is most suited to
    	deciding when pregnancy is an acceptable alternative in 
    	their lives.  Since the person(s) in question (the woman
    	and the man) are real, full-fledged humans with real,
    	full-fledged human rights, the decision belongs in their
    	hands.  They can best determine when the 'miracle of life'
    	should be allowed to proceed.

    	- Greg

    I believe  that St. Thomas Aquinas was resposible for the Catholic
    Church's  current  anti-abortion  position.  Before  he joined the
    Church,  abortion  was allowed until "quickening". The interesting
    bit  of  sexism is that male fetuses quickened earlier than female
    fetuses  (3 vs. 5 months??), so there were a lot of abortions of 4
    month female fetuses and none of 4 month male fetuses. Neat bit of
    guesswork, right?

--David

    	RE:  .407
    
    	> What you are advocating is anarchy, not the rule of law.
    
    	You can't justify any individual law by equating it with
    	our whole legal system.  If we do without this ONE LAW,
    	that does not guarantee complete and total anarchy (nor
    	do the opponents of an anti-abortion law wish to do away
    	with our whole legal system merely because they don't
    	agree with all possible laws.)
    
    	I keep seeing pro-life people use this tactic -- "Well,
    	we have to have laws because if we didn't, we'd have
    	anarchy."  Now you are telling an author, "What you
    	are advocating is anarchy."
    
    	If the law cannot be justified on its own merit, then
    	it can't be justified.  Don't use the merit of "the law"
    	(as a whole) to try to support the necessity for one 
    	particularly BAD possible law.

re .408

	But I didn't use "this ONE LAW", I used a statement of support
	for it, and drew that statement to it's logical conclusion.

	If a statement is to be brought into an argument, that statement must
	be defensible.

						Tom_K

    	RE:  .409
    
    	>  But I didn't use "this ONE LAW", I used a statement of support
    	> for it, and drew that statement to it's logical conclusion.
    
    	Which statement did you use that SUPPORTED the 'one law' I
    	mentioned (i.e., the anti-abortion law.)  The author you
    	addressed was AGAINST such a law, as I recall.
    
    	> If a statement is to be brought into an argument, that
    	> statement must be defensible.
    
    	Again, which statement are you talking about?

re .410

	To clarify:

.404 said:

	"The women of America can not allow the government to legislate moral
	absolutes which are not universally accepted."


	I take that statement, standing alone, and without reference to that
	writes stand on abortion, to be an argument in favor of anarchy.

	And don't take "anarchy" in a bad sense, I have a few 
	arguments in favor of anarchy myself.

						Tom_K

    	RE:  .411
    
    	You are assuming that all laws are an effort to legislate
    	morality, therefore if one does not wish the government to
    	legislate our morality on this particular issue, then one
    	should (logically) be opposed to all laws.
                                                                 
    	Is that what you are trying to say?
    
    	First off, I disagree that ALL laws are an attempt to
    	legislate someone's morality (other than the moral concept
    	that a society is better off having some sort of order
    	by protecting life and property to some acceptable degree.)
    
    	Since the anti-abortion law, from your perspective, is
    	for the purpose of murdering women who decide to make
    	their own choices about what happens to their bodies,
    	then this law can hardly be considered as a way to maintain
    	order in our society (and it certainly is against the
    	goal of protecting life, IF YOU CONSIDER WOMEN HUMAN,
    	that is !) -- therefore, the anti-abortion law does
    	not meet with the goals of our society and is merely
    	the obsession of those whose morals (and goals for
    	women) are questionable.
    
    	I see no reason to have to choose between anarchy and
    	anti-abortion laws in light of the so-called moral
    	imperative behind this particularly bad possible law.

Re: < Note 183.413 by EVER11::KRUPINSKI "Warning: Contents under pressure" >


>re .383
>
>	You are expecting rational argument from people who advocate
>	the killing of innocent babies?

    I haven't heard anyone "advocating the killing of innocent babies"
    in this forum, nor indeed "advocating" abortions.  Just putting the
    record straight.
    
    
>re .398
>
>>    Women who kill babies go to jail for murder Tom.
>
>	Not if they live in the United States, and the baby is unborn.
>	It is your statements that are in error.
    
    It appears that the definition of the word "baby" which you are using
    here (and elsewhere) differs from both the common and legal meanings of
    the word.  Please either use commonly accepted language, or define your
    terms before using them.  To do otherwise only weakens your arguments. 

re .414

>    I haven't heard anyone "advocating the killing of innocent babies"
>    in this forum, nor indeed "advocating" abortions.

	Clearly, you have not been reading what I have been reading.

>    It appears that the definition of the word "baby" which you are using
>    here (and elsewhere) differs from both the common and legal meanings of
>    the word.  Please either use commonly accepted language, or define your
>    terms before using them.  To do otherwise only weakens your arguments. 

	As stated in .413, I prefer to call a spade a spade. If you want to
	call an unborn child something else, then go ahead, but it remains
	what it is, and calling it something else does not alter fact.

						Tom_K

    re: .413 (Tom Kat)
    
>	You are expecting rational argument from people who advocate
>	the killing of innocent babies?
    
    	  I have heard nobody advocate killing of innocent babies.
    	You have imagined this, Tom.  
    
    
>>	Why is demanding that a killer receive just punishment be
>>	considered heartless?
>
>	This question has been written around but it remains unanswered.
>	I repeat it.
    
    	   Nobody has yet stated that killers should not recieve
    	'just punishment'.  We have, on the other hand, argued
    	about how we define 'killers' and what we consider
    	'just punishment'.  Comprende?
    

>>    Women who kill babies go to jail for murder Tom.
>
>	Not if they live in the United States, and the baby is unborn.
>	It is your statements that are in error. And given the choice
>	you give me between being a hypocrite and a killer, I will 
>	opt for the former. Given the same choice you give me, which do
>	you choose?
    
    	   If the baby is unborn, it is a fetus.  It's life depends on
    	the life support functions of the host in which it grows.
    	By virtue of this simple fact, the fetus is not a full-fledged
    	human, and must be granted a special (weaker) set of rights
    	than the host, who is a full-fledged human and has full human
    	rights.  
    
>re .390, .391
>
>	Various individuals with any movement may have differing motivations.
>	It is a mistake to ascribe the motivations of one individual to
>	another, without concrete reasons to do so. What are your reasons
>	for ascribing the motivations you brought up to me?
    
    	   For the sake of clarity, I shall reiterate the motivations
    	to which you refer.
    
>    	   You may not be aware of the central motivations for the
>    	pro-life movement, but that does not mean they do not exist.
>    	A previous noter reflected the true sentiment of the pro-life
>    	movement when she stated that it's underlying purpose was to
>    	ensure the societal value of motherhood (as opposed to women
>    	in the work force).
    
    	   Now, first let me point out that the wording does not
    	imply your acceptance, and in fact, explicitly states 
    	that you may not be aware of the central motivation.
    	(Secretly, I think you are fully aware of them, because
    	I remember your replies in the old 'Box concerning the
    	topic 'Women On Strike'.  Since I cannot prove the
    	existence of these notes, I cannot assert positively
    	the views you espoused therein).
    
    	   So, smooth your ruffled fur, little Tom Kat.  I have
    	not accused you of anything except ignorance (which in
    	your case is abundantly obvious).
    

>	In committing a capital Offense, the person freely accepts
>	the consequences of their actions. If those consequences
>	includes their own death, then that is what they have chosen
>	for themselves.
    
    	   You forget, silly person, that abortion is not a capital
    	offense.  Even if anti-abortion laws are enacted it will
    	not be a capital offense.  Therefore, your argument (once
    	again) falls to pieces.
    
>	I agree with your assertion that "this discussion hinges on people's
>	varying opinion of what "murder" is, and of what constitutes a "human
>	being". Believing as I do, how could I in good conscience, not pursue
>	my beliefs? Were you of the same opinion, how could you not do 
>	likewise? It is, in a way, a curse. But those are the facts, derived
>	in a logical manner from logical precepts. Life would be so much
>	better for all concerned, and especially for myself if the world were
>	different. Or if I changed my beliefs. But doing so would not change 
>	the facts. I did not invent the world, I am only forced to live there.
    
    	   The fact of the matter is, Tom, that you have overlooked
    	the facts completely which do not support your beliefs.  I 
    	agree that, feeling as you do, you are compelled to act as
    	you do.  However, if you examine the real source of your
    	motivations, and are painfully honest with yourself, I think
    	you will find that religious conviction has much more to do
    	with your position than facts, as the balance of the facts
    	do not support your position.
    
>	This is incorrect. The purpose would be, to punish those who
>	have made a conscious decision about their body, and having made
>	it, renege on the agreement implicit and undetachable in that
>	decision, with the new life that their willful actions have
>	created. 
    
    	   Hold on now, pilgrim.  Your statement 'renege on the implicit
    	and undetachable agreement' (slightly paraphrased for clarity)
    	infers that an agreement has been entered into.  Such is clearly
    	not the case if indeed the women in question had no intention
    	of becoming pregnant by the 'willful actions'.  Only if she
    	became pregnant voluntarily has any 'implicit agreement'
    	been entered into.  Your puritanical views notwithstanding,
    	sex is not exclusively (or even most significantly) used
    	for the purposes of procreation.  If intercourse is not
    	performed for the purpose of procreation, then no agreement
    	has been entered into (implicit or otherwise).
    
    	- Greg

    	RE:  .416
    
    	Agreed!
    
    	Just wanted to add that even if abortion becomes illegal, it
    	will *STILL* not be classified as the "murder" of a human
    	being (because there is no legal justification whatsoever for
    	considering a fetus a full human being, no matter what right
    	extremists and religious fanatics keep pounding their heads
    	against the wall repeating.)
    
    	Saying "a fetus is a full-fledged human being" (or "a fetus
    	is a baby and abortion is the murder of a baby") a zillion
    	times doesn't make it true (especially when all logical
    	argument beyond pure religious thought indicates that those
    	beliefs are patently false.)

    	Thanks for your thoughts in this debate!

More light, less [redundant] heat, ok folks?

(Side note: I'd appreciate mail from any noter on better ways to deal with the
sort of 'you said; no _you_ said' discussions that appear around particularly
volatile topics. Is there a sage note somewhere in some conference that
addresses this issue?)
	Mez

    	RE:  .413
    
    	> You are expecting rational argument from people who advocate
    	> the killing of innocent babies?
    
    	You must be having an hallucination again, Tom.  No one
    	here has advocated any such thing.

    	The only one who has rejoiced in the death of certified human
    	beings is you.  You have 'demanded' that women die for their
    	decisions about what happens to their own bodies.
    
    	The murder you keep seeing in others' words and ideas is coming
    	from your own heart and your own 'religious' convictions.

Tom K

Since I made the original comment about my perception of you
as "heartless", I guess I owe an explanation.

From reading your further comments, I can see that nothing I
will say will change your mind.  You have certain set ideas 
about what a baby is and feel justified in feeling no remorse
over a woman losing her life at the hands of an illegal
abortionist.  I, on the other hand, feel great remorse for
the woman who is forced to go to such drastic measures and
loses her life in the process.  Hence, I feel you must be
heartless to be "glad" about her death.  Your words just hit
me the wrong way.  Are you really glad she died?  THAT'S what
sounds so heartless to me...

Debess

    After reading all of the previous replies, I have not yet been
    convinced to change my views on abortion.  I am still pro-choice
    and all this verbage has only augmented my cause.  A fetus is a
    fetus and by any other name, etc....
    
    Just one woman's opinion.
        
    -Dotti.

	
        

    
    	   Religious idealism, such as that displayed by Tom,
    	precludes any rational discussion from ever taking
    	place.  The man is simply unable to compose a thought
    	on the subject that does not include the words 'kill' 
    	or 'murder', despite the fact that he claims to advocate
    	a pro-life point of view. 
    
    	   With zealots like him running around, is it any wonder
    	to anyone that the masses are leaving the curches in
    	droves?  How many 'holy wars' have been fought, how many
    	people have been murdered in the name of this type of
    	religious idealism?  That they have the audacity to
    	pretend to be on some higher moral ground is what really
    	amazes me.  But that's the way of the zealot... put on
    	the hoods, stomp around, make a lot of noise, kill
    	some people, then claim to have done it all in the name
    	of God and righteousness.  It makes me sick.
    
    	- Greg

    
    Might as well jump in...  I think it's important to remember of what
    little use pure logic is when discussing moral issues of any kind.
    Logic, when misused and misunderstood, leads to all sorts of statements
    like "if you have a choice between killing 2 people and killing 3, it's
    right to kill the 3..."  (Stendahl's "The Red and the Black" offers
    some very spooky prefigurements of the Holocaust in the type of 
    "moral arithmetic" which surfaced in France in the early 1800's.)
    
    Logic just can't encompass the complexity and the impact of emotional 
    moral issues.  Maybe we have to relearn how to make hard choices
    between less than desirable outcomes rather than pursuing absolutes
    that don't exist.  We constantly run the risk of causing injury to
    others - each and every human act has the potential of injuring
    another.  We have to be aware of that, but not be paralyzed by it.
    There are two ways to avoid making choices - give up in despair and
    make no choices at all, or find a "fixed idea" and let it make the
    choices for you.  Either one is destructive.
    
    What has this got to do with the topic?  (I knew you'd ask!)  You don't
    make people responsible by legislation (although you need laws for the
    judicial system to work).  You make people responsible by giving them
    responsibility.  In this case, it's the responsibility of making the
    choice of whether or not to abort.  You also make them responsible
    through education - teaching them what their choices are, teaching them
    that through prevention they can change the set of choices they may be
    faced with.  Will it work with everybody?  No.  But then, this is a
    case where the percentages don't add up to 100...  (Consistancy is in
    short supply when dealing with people.)
    
    Each of us has our reasons for being on one side or the other of this
    question.  And to each one, the emotions behind the belief are valid.
    But as long as we look for 100% solutions, we'll just keep going around
    and around.  I'm pro-choice because I believe that abortion is an issue
    that each person must address on their own terms, and I believe in the
    right of a woman to maintain control of her own body.  Call it free
    will, responsibility, or whatever, the basis of an active moral life is
    choice.
    
    Ron   

    OK. Hold it. Time out.
    
    A few people here have been accusing Tom of putting words into
    people's mouths (i.e. "advocating the killing of babies"), and
    yet some of these same people are doing the exact same thing
    by referring to Tom's "religious zeal". Correct me if I'm wrong,
    but I don't recall that Tom has said a single word about his
    stand being based on his religious beliefs, only his sense of
    morals. Now, it could be that Tom's morals are derived from his
    religious beliefs, but I've seen nothing here to indicate that
    he even *has* any religious beliefs.
    
    (Nota bene: I'm not trying to defend Tom's position as a "pro-lifer"
    -- I'm a definite pro-choicer myself -- I'm just trying to be fair
    here.)
    
    Secondly, the thing to keep in mind is that some legal definitions
    do not follow what reason, logic, or moral beliefs may tell you. If
    the law says that fetuses are not babies, then legally, they are
    not babies. As long as abortion is legal, it is not murder, since
    murder is defined as "the *unlawful* taking of a life".
    
    --- jerry

Thank you .426, .425, and .424

I'll try this one more time: stop slamming each other. Last time I checked,
that wasn't what we were supposed to be doing.
	Mez

           
    If we legalize RU486, a lot of emotional and moral pain will be
    taken out of the abortion issue.  This drug is legal and available 
    in other countries.  It should be here too.  American women have
    a right to the same technological advancements as women else
    where in the world.  There is no reason why American women should
    be denied access to this drug, especially since abortion is legal 
    in this country.  
    
    I can remember when certain religious groups fought against legalizing
    birth control.  If abortion becomes illegal once again, will all
    birth control devices be next on the list of reversals?  This issue
    exceeds the question of abortion.  The issue also concerns whether
    the laws of this country should restrict the rights of a majority
    because of the  beliefs of a minority.  
    
    Mary

Re: < Note 183.415 by EVER11::KRUPINSKI "Warning: Contents under pressure" >

>re .414
>
>>    I haven't heard anyone "advocating the killing of innocent babies"
>>    in this forum, nor indeed "advocating" abortions.
>
>	Clearly, you have not been reading what I have been reading.

    Clearly not. Where have you been doing your reading :-)
    
    
>>    It appears that the definition of the word "baby" which you are using
>>    here (and elsewhere) differs from both the common and legal meanings of
>>    the word.  Please either use commonly accepted language, or define your
>>    terms before using them.  To do otherwise only weakens your arguments. 
>
>	As stated in .413, I prefer to call a spade a spade. If you want to
>	call an unborn child something else, then go ahead, but it remains
>	what it is, and calling it something else does not alter fact.

    This part of my note was a serious plea.  You obviously mean something
    different to most of the noters who are writing in this note-string
    when you use the word "baby".  I am (genuinely) not sure what you mean
    by it.  "Unborn child" is no better, in that all it does is exclude
    "born children" (that is, it indicates what you don't mean, not what
    you do).  I simply want to know (precisely) what it is that you are
    referring to by these phrases.  Without such an understanding one
    anothers' language, we cannot hope to understand one anothers' point of
    view.  I have my suspicions as to what you intend by the word "baby",
    but I would like to be sure, so that I don't waste time arguing against
    a point of view that nobody holds.  And I also don't want to be accused
    of putting words into other people's mouths. 

    Once again, this is a serious question, and one I hope you will take
    the time to answer. 
    
    
    John

    	RE:  .428   -< Legalize RU486 >-
    
    	You raised some excellent points, Mary.  Thank you.
    
    	

    re:428 
    Mary, 
    As a pro-lifer, I think that RU486 may only open another can of
    worms in this constant battle of abortion/birth control. If a drug
    can end a pregnancy, why be bothered to use any method of birth
    control prior to conception? That is the anti-RU486 train of thought.
    Some women use abortion as a means of birth control and I have a
    problem with that. I'm a pro-choicer in that I don't want to see
    a lot of women on the wrong end of a coat hanger either. I stated
    in MENNOTES that I would favor abortion in cases of failed birth
    control methodology, danger to the life of the mother, incest, rape,
    pedophilia-pregnancy and teenagers. But I should state that this
    should occur within 6 weeks. I don't believe that women should decide
    at three and four and five months that this is MY BODY and I don't
    want it stretched, mishapen, fat, marked. etc. and then proceed
    to abort. I don't know where to draw the line but 3 months is too
    deep into the human development cycle to decide that it's time to
    dump the load.
    
    This is not meant to be vile, angry but I have a question:
    
    Since an unborn fetus is not a baby, is it OK to abort the fetus
    at 35-1/2 weeks?? 30 weeks?? 28 weeks??
    
    Ken

    It is difficult to detect pregnancy at 6 weeks.  12 weeks is probably
    when testing can most certainly ascertain that one is pregnant.  They
    will test at 6 or 7 weeks, but they will caution that the results may
    not be 100% correct.
    
    It is my opinion that *if* an abortion is to occur, it should occur
    within the first 12-14 weeks of pregnancy (increased safety and peace
    of mind would result, I think).  

    -Jody
    

    	RE:  .432  Jody
    
    	Actually, home pregnancy tests can be taken the first day that
    	menses is overdue (and the tests are fairly accurate, from what
    	I've heard.)
    
    	By the 6th week, the symptoms of pregnancy are pretty hard to
    	miss:  fatigue, soreness in breasts, possible nausea, a mood swing
    	or three... ;)
    
    	There is an early, early kind of abortion called a 'menstrual
    	aspiration,' if they're still available.  A friend of mine had
    	one of those in the mid-1970's (when she was fairly certain
    	that her birth control had failed.)  When her period was overdue
    	by a week or so, she had a menstrual aspiration (and it, more
    	or less, just brought on her period that was late.)  I'm not
    	sure if she was able to take a pregnancy test or not at that
    	point (due to the technology available back then,) but I do
    	know that it was a simple office procedure because I went with 
    	her to the OB/GYN (and had a birth control and checkup appt. 
    	of my own.)
    
    	First trimester abortions are done within a certain 'window'
    	(I think) -- somewhere around 8 weeks to 12 weeks, I believe.
    	However, the pregnancy is easily detectable (these days) well
    	before that much time has passed.

Note 183.431                    
RUTLND::KUPTON 


>    As a pro-lifer, I think that RU486 may only open another can of
>    worms in this constant battle of abortion/birth control. If a drug
>    can end a pregnancy, why be bothered to use any method of birth
>    control prior to conception? That is the anti-RU486 train of thought.

Ken, abortion is not illegal in this country.  There is no reason why
American women should not have access to RU486.  

RU486 can only be used in the early stages of pregnancy,
before brain wave patterns develop.  It is not safe to use on a regular
monthly basis, year after year.  Long term, regular use is not what it was
designed for.  


>    Some women use abortion as a means of birth control and I have a
>    problem with that. I'm a pro-choicer in that I don't want to see
>    a lot of women on the wrong end of a coat hanger either. I stated
>    in MENNOTES that I would favor abortion in cases of failed birth
>    control methodology, danger to the life of the mother, incest, rape,
>    pedophilia-pregnancy and teenagers. But I should state that this
>    should occur within 6 weeks. I don't believe that women should decide
>    at three and four and five months that this is MY BODY and I don't
>    want it stretched, mishapen, fat, marked. etc. and then proceed
>    to abort. I don't know where to draw the line but 3 months is too
>    deep into the human development cycle to decide that it's time to
>    dump the load.
    
It seems that our country is preoccupied with behavior modification these
days.  Drug testing is really a tool to monitor off the job personal behavior.
Our society doesn't appear to realize that an individual must be responsible
for his or her own actions.  He or she must make the decisions that influence
one's own life and then live with the consequences of those decisions.

I'm sure that you know that most doctors refuse to perform abortions after
a certain time except in extreme cases.  Also, as I've pointed out previously,
RU486 cannot be safely used after the beginning stages of pregnancy.  

If the pro-life people can live with prohibiting abortions after a certain
stage of pregnancy (except in medical emergencies) then I am sure that the
pro-choice people could live with that too.  Are you suggesting a compromise?


>    This is not meant to be vile, angry but I have a question:
>    
>    Since an unborn fetus is not a baby, is it OK to abort the fetus
>    at 35-1/2 weeks?? 30 weeks?? 28 weeks??
    
Well Ken, this entire question is a result of our modern technology.  Its
modern technology that explains the details of the gestation process to us.
Its modern technology that allows us to determine when the brain is developed
and to monitor brain wave patterns.  Its modern technology that gives us a
choice as to whether the pregnancy reaches that point.  

We could allow modern technology to assist us in making this decision.  We 
could agree to ban abortions after a certain stage of development is reached,
... say, when the brain is developed and brain activity detected for example.
Most pro-choice people would settle for 3 months I believe.  
Brain death is a determining factor when shutting off life support systems
to the newly dead also.  It is not a totally new marking point in
determining the presence of life.
                                                                 
    
If you are suggesting a compromise, we would (I am sure) agree to that.  
But a total ban on all abortions from conception?  No!!  Out of the question.

    And RU486 must be made available in this country as soon as possible.  
    Abortion is not illegal and American women are entitled to receive the 
    benefits of this drug.

Mary

    First, I'd like to state that I can't help but admire Tom_K for
    sticking up for his beliefs, in the face of overwhelming disagreement
    such as we have here.
    
    I've been following this discussion, and I have to agree that the
    whole thing hinges on the definition of "life".  When does life
    begin?  At conception, or at the first brain wave?
    
    The pro-lifers take the strict biological view, and point to the
    amoeba-like organism that is present immediately after conception,
    and shout, "LIFE!"; they then extrapolate that the killing of this
    is classified as murder.
    
    If this were true, then we'd all be murderers.  People kill flies,
    bugs, etc. all year long.
    
    The trick is to distinguish when this life is recognizable as an
    independent human being.
    
    "Independent" implies "can live on its own, with no support from
    any host organism".
    
    "Human being" implies brain wave activity.
    
    Abortions past the first trimester are physically dangerous to the
    "host organism"; namely, the mother.
    
    ----------------------
    
    Another tack, which was mentioned briefly, but not really fleshed
    out:
    
    People have accepted the fact that once brain wave activity is dead,
    the person is no longer "human", but merely a living shell; a heart
    which pumps, blood which flows, but no thoughts, no feelings, no
    desires.  No humanity, since humans are distinguishable from other
    members of the ape family by their higher reasoning powers.  There
    is little difference between a dead baboon and a dead human, except
    memories of the living.
    
    When people become old and frail, and their bodies cease to continue
    functioning, modern medical science has permitted us to "plug them
    in", and keep the body functioning, even though the mind may be
    dead.
    
    Is this "plugged-in" person, who has no chance for recovery, a human 
    with rights?  How can they have rights when any doctor can pull
    the plug?  "Mrs. Smith was allowed to die naturally." is the phrase
    that's used.
    
    Mrs. Smith, who was removed from her life support, stood no chance
    of surviving on her own; hence, she died.
    
    The exact same theory applies to a fetus.  Instead of decaying,
    the life is forming; instead of declining, the life is increasing.
    Life is like a bell curve, people.  At either end, it is frail and
    weak, and can easily be terminated.
    
    ----------------------
    
    Pro-lifers: Imagine this:
    
    Suppose someone near and dear to you was brutally beaten, and died
    as a result of injuries.  Would you then feel the responsibility
    to care for the abuser, and feed, clothe, and shelter this person
    for the next nine months?
    
    I feel that no human should be forced into accepting responsibility
    for anyone beyond themselves.  Naturally, there are limitations
    to this, some imposed by the law (thou shalt not take thy brand
    new Ford, and mow down pedestrians), and some by morality (thou
    shalt attempt to raise thy children).  ["Morality" may be the wrong
    word here, but close enough.]
    
    Sexual relations are not exclusively for the purpose of procreation.
    If you believe that they are, then it is easy to extrapolate into
    the "implied agreement and responsibility" of the unborn.
    
    However, if you feel that sexual relations are an act of love (I'll
    leave casual "sex" for others to discuss), and merely for the act
    of sharing with one another a beautiful thing, then to weigh this
    down with a responsibility to an erroneous result is not reasonable.
    
    In summary:
    
    I do not believe that a first trimester fetus (not "baby", who is
    an identifiable, brain-wave-trackable, independent human being)
    is defined as human; hence, the aborting of such is not, and never
    will be, murder.
    
    My aunt has a button (I may have mentioned this before) which has
    a simple picture of a coat hanger on it.  The message implied is
    kind of clear...
    
    *NOBODY* here has advocated abortion.  *NOBODY* here has said,
    "Abortion is a great thing, and should be done right and left."
    
    On the contrary, the emphasis has been placed on the choice of the
    mother - someone with a set of feelings, emotions, a piece of humanity,
    if you will, who's having their whole being overrided in favor of
    an *amoeba*.
    
    Bill
    
    
    

    re:  435
    
    Very well said, Bill. You've stated the pro-choice position
    exactly! 
    
    pat

    The last three days have seen some *EXTREMELY* heated argument on this
    issue, complete with some personal attacks that I'm sure will be
    regretted once everyone's blood pressure drops to normal levels again. 
    
    I've been away at class, else I would long before now have joined Mez
    and Jody in urging more calmness.  Please, folks, do try to keep in
    mind that we're all in the same boat here, just trying to get by in the
    most honorable and painless way we know how.  Few people are real
    monsters, ever.
    
    						=maggie 

    re:434
    
    Mary....I have stated before that I felt there must be some kind
    of compromise made in this issue. I'm torn by the fact that if abortion
    is made illegal, women will resort to the horrible old methods of
    abortion. That's not an answer. I have also stated that I personally
    know women (not a good term here) that use abortiin as a method
    of birth control. One has had four abortions. She is intelligent,
    successful, but out of her own control because she "forgets" to
    use contreception. I also believe that stict controls should be
    placed on "when" the line should be drawn and pregnancy must be
    carried to term. The problem here gets into the "this is my body
    and I'm not going to be legislated". So a women breaks with her
    SO who is the father of a whatever inside her and she's at 14 weeks.
    If the law stated that no abortions could be lgally performed after
    10 weeks, then we'd be back to square one.
    
    Hardliners on both sides:
    
    """"""No Abortions""""""
    
    """""No Restrictions"""""
    
    Until a compromise can be reached, then I feel that abortion should
    be on a case by case basis. I just feel sorry that alot of little
    kids will never be given a shot at life, a life they might make
    better for everyone in this world. I also know tha many would be
    miserable and life would be the same for everyone they touched.
    I don't have the answer, if I did, my name would be spelled G_O_D.
    
    Ken

    It appears that we all agree that there is no _right_
    answer, no way to a solution that satisfies everyone.
    There is then, no use in appealing to some higher
    authority and each individual therefore must decide for oneself;
    indeed, can decide _only_ for oneself.
    
    Few individuals seem to be living perfect lives;  how
    silly of them to try to direct others'.
    
    /bruce

Note 183.438                    
RUTLND::KUPTON 


Ken, I understand the confusion and pain that the issue of abortion raises.
I share your concerns and discomfort. 

>>I have also stated that I personally know women (not a good term here) 
>> that use abortiin as a method of birth control. One has had four abortions. 

Ken, we all personally know people who are self-destructive or who don't have 
their act together in one way or another.  Knowing that people like that exist 
does not and cannot justify interfering with the decision making process of 
the rest of the women in the country.  We (American women) cannot be made to
pay for the moral and judgement failure of a few women.  The women of America
don't deserve that.


>    Until a compromise can be reached, then I feel that abortion should
>    be on a case by case basis. 

I don't believe that laws can be made on such a basis Ken.  The justice system
must not assume that a women is unable to make a decision for herself until
proven otherwise.  The women of America are not children and we are not
incompetent and that is what such a policy would imply in my view.


>  I just feel sorry that alot of little
>    kids will never be given a shot at life, a life they might make
>    better for everyone in this world. I also know tha many would be
>    miserable and life would be the same for everyone they touched.
>    I don't have the answer, if I did, my name would be spelled G_O_D.
    
I understand and I share your sorrow Ken.  Those of us who are working
to make conditions better for everyone in the world know that someday
each and every child will be greeted with joy and valued by all who 
have entered life first.  Children will be our highest priority 
and nothing will be more important, not guns nor money.  Each new individual
will take his or her place in a society that exists to support the well 
being of the individual.  I will gladly greet that day.  In the meantime,
we are (all of us) getting by as best we can.  I know you understand.
So we share our grief and work toward a better tomorrow, one which doesn't
demand such hard decisions.
        
Mary
    

    <--(.440)
    
    *WELL* said, Mary!!

    I decline to pass judgement on women who use abortion as birth control.
    
    Abortion is the second most popular form of birth control in Japan. It
    is safe and effective. If it's up to the woman then IT'S UP TO THE WOMAN.
    
    	-- Charles

    
    	Recently seen on a station wagon in Houston (driven by a married
    	woman who obviously had kids):
    
    		"Playboy and Abortion:  Both Exploit Women"
    
    	Pardon me if I seem a bit dense just now, but I really don't
    	see the connection.  How is it that abortions are exploitive
    	when the women voluntarily seek them?  Come to think of it,
    	they voluntary seek to become Playboy bunnies, too.  
    
    	The pro-life counterpart to logic eludes me.
    
    	- Greg

    re: .444 (Tom K)
    
>	Please show where the ideas I have put forth stem from religious 
>	belief. I have taken great pain to avoid religious argument.
    
    	   My apologies if I have misjudged you, but that last
    	statement is very telling.  Why would you have to go to
    	'great pains to avoid religious argument', if that was
    	not an integral part of your reasoning on the matter?
    	Nevertheless, I shall accept your word on the matter
    	and offer my apologies.
    
    
>	For those that believe that a prohibition against abortion
>	enslaves a woman by forcing her to perform a task she does not
>	want to do, are you willing to allow an abortion right up to
>	before the moment of birth? 
    
    	   In direct answer, I'd have to say that I would support
    	abortion up to the time of delivery (though in the later
    	stages it would more likely be an abruption than an
    	abortion, since the fetus would be too large to abort).
    	Note that the longer a pregnancy progresses, the more 
    	dangerous abortion becomes, and the more necessary surgical 
    	extraction becomes.
    
    >If the woman does not want to go through
>	delivery (natural or surgical), preventing her from aborting would 
>	be as much a forcing her to do something she doesn't want to do, as
>	prohibiting an abortion soon after conception.
    
	   There is some truth in what you say, but it is half
    	truth.  As the time for delivery approaches, abortion is
    	not possible in the usual sense, as the fetus is too
    	large and the bones too well developed.  In these 
    	stages of the process, abruption (most likely by C-section)
    	is the only way to remove the fetus.  Once the fetus is
    	free of the mother's womb, if it is capable of life
    	then it should be allowed to live.  If it is not, then
    	the point is moot.
    
    	- Greg
    

    	RE: .444

    	Tom, there is no way that an abortion at term (9 mos pregnant)
    	could be used to avoid either a natural or surgical delivery.
    	By the ninth month of pregnancy, the fetus is too large to
    	come out any other way (other than through a delivery process
    	or surgery.)
    
    	What you are suggesting simply isn't possible (and is NOT part
    	of any argument that has been presented here on behalf of
    	pro-choice.)

re: 444


>	For those of you who are "uncomfortable" with the notion of
>	a person having multiple abortions, why is this so? If an
>	abortion is simply a removal of some random piece of tissue,
>	then multiple abortions should cause no more tinges of conscience
>	than multiple tooth extractions.

     I am uncomfortable with the notion of multiple abortions
     because it represents multiple instances of avoidable
     surgery. Just as I'd be uncomfortable with someone who
     repeatedly allowed bricks to fall on their toes and then
     had to repeatedly have surgery to fix their injuries.
     
>	For those that believe that a prohibition against abortion
>	enslaves a woman by forcing her to perform a task she does not
>	want to do, are you willing to allow an abortion right up to
>	before the moment of birth? If the woman does not want to go through

    Maybe if you were a women you could understand that carrying a 
    pregnancy to term is more than a "task she does not want to do."
    Why can't you understand that it's more than the inconvenience
    or discomfort of pregnancy that causes women to seek abortions?
    Don't you understand that for most women, their lives would
    be destroyed if they had to deal with other people finding out
    about the pregnancy? Putting such a baby up for adoption would
    add to the condemnation these women would have to face. And please
    don't start with any arguments about what's a little condemnation
    compared to the "life" of a "child". An aborted fetus has no idea
    that it's been aborted, has no consciousness, and therefore cannot
    miss a life it never had. 

    And, yes, I'd allow abortion up to right before the moment of birth.
    If the pregnancy were advanced up to the point where the fetus
    would likely survive, though, I'd advocate doing a caesarian,
    and then putting the baby up for adoption. However, I admit that
    I don't understand why anyone would bother with an abortion for an
    extremely advanced pregnancy (except in the case of severe birth
    defects or in mainland China, where I
    do understand their need for this). At that point, it's not a secret
    to anyone, so why not just put the baby up for adoption? (No, I haven't
    forgotten the pain/danger of childbirth.) Of course,
    that's MY opinion, and I support the right of any other woman
    to make this type of decision for herself. I could never do it for her.

    RE: .444 by EVER11::KRUPINSKI "Thank you for using VAXnotes" >
  >>  re: .435   AKOV12::MILLIOS
  >>    The trick is to distinguish when this life is recognizable as an
  >>    independent human being.
  >>    "Independent" implies "can live on its own, with no support from
  >>    any host organism".

  >  I hope you never get hit by a car and have to have some form
  >  of temporary life support...
   
    By carefully re-examining my original statement, you will perhaps
    notice the word "host organism".  There is a difference between
    "life support" and "parasitism."
    
    I'll elaborate a bit:
    (This is a bit, ahh, graphic, not for the weak of stomach.  It's
    also an extremely impersonal look at pregnancy so please do not 
    think of me as a monster.  :^)
    
    Pregnancy is the attachment of a group of cells to the inside of
    a woman's body, becoming a parasite.  It derives all life and
    sustenance from the mother.
    
    There is a fundamental difference between this, and "generic life
    support."
    
    If my kidneys suddenly stop working, I cannot force anyone to give
    me a new one.  I can ask for donations, I can wait in line, but
    I cannot drag someone off the street and have a kidney removed for
    my own benefit.  This is the "voluntary" part of life support that
    is not present in pregnancy.
    
    If the pregnancy is voluntary, then the "parasite" is accepted.
    That is the decision of the host organism, in this case - the mother.
    If the pregnancy is not voluntary, then the mother should have no
    more responsibility to the first trimester fetus that we would have
    to a leech which happened to attach itself to us.
    
    Would you take pity on the leech?  Hell, no.  You'd rip it off,
    with a shudder and a shiver up your spine, as would I.
    
    (Abortions after the first trimester are often dangerous to the
    host organism, so I feel that it should be left up to the discretion
    of the doctor to decide.  However, once the parasite becomes able
    to "survive" on it's own, it is a viable "host organism" itself,
    and should be treated as such.)

re .449

>    By carefully re-examining my original statement, you will perhaps
>    notice the word "host organism". 

	So the host organism builds a machine that does the actual work.
	There is still a reliance on the host.

					Tom_K

    Temporary Life Support aids a fully-developed organism to MAINTAIN
    it's state of growth.
    
    Pregnancy Life Support provides EVERYTHING for a totally undeveloped
    organism in order to grow.
    
    The two are unrelated in this context.
    
    --DE
    

Re: < Note 183.444 by EVER11::KRUPINSKI "Thank you for using VAXnotes" >

>    	For those that believe that a prohibition against abortion
>	enslaves a woman by forcing her to perform a task she does not
>	want to do, are you willing to allow an abortion right up to
>	before the moment of birth? If the woman does not want to go through
>	delivery (natural or surgical), preventing her from aborting would 
>	be as much a forcing her to do something she doesn't want to do, as
>	prohibiting an abortion soon after conception.


    This touches on the point I have been striving (unsuccessfully) to get
    your opinion on for some time in this note-string.  Can I assume from
    this extract that your view is that an abortion immediately after
    conception is as much "murder" as the killing of (say) a year-old
    child?

    It is this view (which I have to assume you hold, although you have so
    far refused to explicitly say so, so I could be wrong) that I find
    totally groundless.  There is absolutely no basis for such a view, and
    hence it makes no sense to attempt to elevate it to anything _more_
    than a personal view.  You are entitled to your own views, but as they
    cannot be backed up by hard evidence, they are no more (or less) valid
    than many other views, and therefore there is no justification for
    attempting to impose them on others. 
    
    My own view (since it has been solicited) is that abortion in the early
    stages of pregnancy is perfectly allowable, although it is preferable
    to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.  However, apart
    from some increased risk to the woman, I can see no real distinction
    between an _early_ abortion, and contraception.  In the later stages of
    pregnancy, I believe it to be wrong.  When the early stages end and the
    later stages begin is a grey area, and is (to me) far more interesting
    a discussion topic.  Initially, the embryo is not independently alive,
    any more than a skin-cell is independently alive, and it has no more
    "rights" than a skin-cell.  In fact, it is much more like a tumour,
    which might be considered to have rather fewer rights than a piece of
    regular tissue!  At or near the time of birth, the fetus/baby is
    definitely "alive", and has (or should have) acquired the same right to
    life as an adult human. Quite how and when these rights are acquired is
    not clear.  This probably offers more scope for rational discussion,
    rather than turning into a mud-slinging match between extreme
    viewpoints. 
    
    There are those in this conference who maintain that the fetus should
    have no rights until the minute it is born, and then acquire them all
    at once.  I find this view as simplistic as attempting to assign rights
    to individual cells.  However - and this is the key point - I recognize
    that my views are based on personal and ill-defined feelings concerning
    what "life" really is.  It would be intolerable for me to attempt to
    impose such personal views on those who do not share them.  I can only
    hope to sway the views of others by rational argument. 

    
					    John

    re: .447
    
    	>>> Saying "a fetus is a full-fledged human being" (or "a fetus
         
	>> Saying an unborn  baby is nothing but a fetus and therefore abortion
         
    	>Parroting my statement with the ideas reversed is totally
    	>meaningless if you cannot provide the logical thought that
    	>indicates that a fetus is a "baby" (i.e., a full human being.)
    
    As a statement it is no more meaningless than your statement.  Neither
    group has proof of their contentions, only opinions.  And, regardless
    of your beliefs there is no 'logical argument' that shows *either*
    belief to be "patently" false.

        >Of course, if there *were* logical arguments to prove that
    	>fetuses were full humans, you would have presented them a long
    	>time ago, so I don't blame you for copping out.  There was
    	>nothing else you could do.
    
    There has been no cop out by anybody.  Let's stop the badgering!
     Also, there are NO arguments to PROVE any belief.  That's why
    they are called beliefs.  What arguments are available have been
    presented (a long time ago) by both sides.  Do not cloud up an issue
    with remarks that seem to instigate or alienate people from
    participating.  To essentially tell someone that they are a cop out
    and that there is nothing they can do about it is not productive
    to good communication.
    
                                   
    	>Well, since what pro-life people are proposing will DEFINITELY
    	>lead to the deaths of women 
    
    It works in reverse too.  To make a statement like that seems to
    say that you feel that pro-lifers would be guilty of those deaths.
     Sad attitude.
    
        >then I suppose one could say that justice would be
    	>served if pro-lifers were killed (despite the fact that pro-lifers
    	>don't seem to realize that they are promoting crimes against
    	>women.)
        
    And, *if* your views are the norm, *you* expect *me* to have *any*
    sympathy or understanding to your cause if this is your true attitude?
     Think about it...
         
    	>However, I don't feel glad when I hear that a pro-lifer has
    	>died and that his/her behavior has been stopped.  I guess that's
    	>what makes me different than you.  
    
    You are implying that, as a pro-lifer, I am "glad" when I hear that
    a pro-choicer has died.  I should like a retraction and apology,
    though I doubt that I would receive it.
    
    	>I refuse to judge that you should die (even though you have
    	>judged that women should die and have no remorse about the fact
    	>that they will most assuredly die because of your belief system.)
    
    But you have no qualms about judging me in general.  And PLEASE
    stop assuming how I feel about certain things.  Do not inform *me*
    of when I do and do not feel remorse.  I will inform you.
    
    Sorry if this dragged on.  I hadn't intended to get involved in
    this topic because there seems to be more war than idea sharing.
    
    jim
    

    Jim,
    
    Contrary to one of your claims, the pro-choice people do have
    factual support for their assertion that a fetus is not a full
    human being.  A fetus indeed cannot survive independantly of a
    host human body, whereas all humans [even those on life-support
    systems] do so.
    
    You could object to their definition of human being, but then,
    morally, you would be obliged to offer up your own definition.
    I have not seen you do that yet, so why don't you?
    
    							Ann B.

	RE:  .453
    
    	>>Well, since what pro-life people are proposing will DEFINITELY
    	>>lead to the deaths of women 
    
    	>It works in reverse too.  To make a statement like that seems to
    	>say that you feel that pro-lifers would be guilty of those deaths.
     	>Sad attitude.
    
    	It's like I said, what pro-life people are proposing will
    	definitely lead to the deaths of women.  Every time I bring
    	that up, various pro-lifers say they don't care, so I doubt
    	if any will be moved to feel guilt for those deaths.  It's
    	more likely that they will feel, as Tom K. has stated openly,
    	that the pro-life brand of justice will be served by those
    	needless deaths.  Now, THAT is a sad attitude.
    
        >>then I suppose one could say that justice would be
    	>>served if pro-lifers were killed (despite the fact that pro-lifers
    	>>don't seem to realize that they are promoting crimes against
    	>>women.)
        
    	>And, *if* your views are the norm, *you* expect *me* to have *any*
    	>sympathy or understanding to your cause if this is your true attitude?
     	>Think about it...
       
    	No fair.  You stopped at the point where I clearly stated that
    	this was *NOT* my view, but rather was a parallel of the
    	pro-life view towards the deaths of women.  *Very* dishonest of you
    	to treat this sentence as if it were my real view, wasn't it?
      
    	>>However, I don't feel glad when I hear that a pro-lifer has
    	>>died and that his/her behavior has been stopped.  I guess that's
    	>>what makes me different than you.  
    
    	>You are implying that, as a pro-lifer, I am "glad" when I hear that
    	>a pro-choicer has died.  I should like a retraction and apology,
    	>though I doubt that I would receive it.
    
    	I was addressing Tom K. specifically (and he *has* expressed
    	the opinion that justice is served when women die from illegal
    	abortions, which means that their deaths are desirable
    	occurances in his eyes.)  No apology is warranted for addressing
    	his beliefs in a note that was specifically directed to him.
    
    	>>I refuse to judge that you should die (even though you have
    	>>judged that women should die and have no remorse about the fact
    	>>that they will most assuredly die because of your belief system.)
    
    	>But you have no qualms about judging me in general.  And PLEASE
    	>stop assuming how I feel about certain things.  Do not inform *me*
    	>of when I do and do not feel remorse.  I will inform you.
    
    	Again, I was speaking specifically to Tom K. who has repeatedly
    	expressed his lack of remorse for the women who will die in
    	illegal abortions (likening them to those who die at the hands
    	of 'hit men' that they hired to kill others.)
    
    	I'm not judging you (or even Tom K.)  I am *protesting* about
    	the fact that Tom (and pro-lifers) judge others by the standards
    	of their (your) own morality.
    
    	I would prefer it if you made YOUR own choice about unplanned
    	pregnancy, and allowed others to make THEIRS.  What you do with
    	your own lives are none of my business.  What you do to MY life
    	(and the lives of millions of women in this country) *is* my
    	business (and is of deepest concern to me.)  While you may
    	have the belief that fetuses are full human beings, there
    	is ZERO moral or legal doubt that WOMEN are human.  I don't
    	need to rely on a belief system to justify trying to save
    	the lives of people that are UNDOUBTEDLY human (as opposed
    	to possibly human.) 
    
    	>Sorry if this dragged on.  I hadn't intended to get involved in
    	>this topic because there seems to be more war than idea sharing.
    
    	Don't feel obligated to continue to respond if it makes
    	you uncomfortable.  You can stop anytime you like.

        Re .455, Suzanne,
        
        Very well said!
        

    re:.453
    
    I've said before, in previous discussions on the subject, that
    in this area, the burden of proof (regarding whether or not a
    fetus is a full-fledged human being) is on the "pro-life" side.
    If a pro-lifer insists that abortion is murder, it's up to him
    or her to prove that by proving that a fetus is a human being.
    In the absence of such proof, the assumption must be made that
    that is not the case.
    
    --- jerry

re .445, .446

	Thank you for your answers to my questions.

re .445

	I've "taken great pain" for the same reason I take great pain
	when coding a piece of software - my name is on it, and I don't
	like to be wrong. 

re .447

	I used your words to make the point that you saying X is Y or
	me saying X is not Y isn't an argument. I've presented logical
	arguments. Unfortunately, you either do not see the logic in them,
	or disagree with the logic, but that does not mean that the logic
	is not there.

>	I just want choice for women.

	You want choice for women who have been born. Women who are unborn
	get to have choices made for them.

>	Your parallel does not fit at all.

	That is certainly possible. But I'd like you to point out the flaws.

re .448

	Thank you especially for your thoughtful answer to my question
	on multiple abortion.

	Allow me to also apologize for posing my second question badly.
	It was not my intention to attempt to trivialize a pregnancy
	by using the term "task she does not want to do." I agree with
	everything you say about the task being a difficult, discomforting,
	and potentially dangerous one.

	But I would also be condemned if someone were to see me rob a
	bank. I avoid that condemnation by not robbing banks, not by
	killing the person who might see me.

	And any person who is killed cannot miss the life that it never
	had. Actually this could be wrong, because I suspect neither
	of us knows for sure exactly what happens to a person once
	they leave this world. But I would argue that the same thing
	happens to each, because, after all, they are both living,
	individual, entities.

re .451

>    Temporary Life Support aids a fully-developed organism to MAINTAIN
>    it's state of growth.

	Like a premature infant in a infant care unit?

>    The two are unrelated in this context.

	I hold that they are very similar.



re .452

>	Can I assume from this extract that your view is that an abortion 
>	immediately after conception is as much "murder" as the killing 
>	of (say) a year-old child?

	Outside of the fact that the year-old got to live a little longer,
	yes. You say that that view is groundless. You are wrong. I've
	provided multiple replies to support this position. You may choose
	to ignore or disagree with them, but to say that they do not exist
	in incorrect.


re .453

	Someone got my point! Thanks.

re .454

>	A fetus indeed cannot survive independantly of a
>	host human body, whereas all humans [even those on life-support
>	systems] do so.

	This is incorrect. Where did that life support system come from?
	[Hint: human host is a valid answer]
    
>    You could object to their definition of human being, but then,
>    morally, you would be obliged to offer up your own definition.

	No, you would simply be obligated to show why the definition put
	forward is incorrect.

re .455

    
>    	It's like I said, what pro-life people are proposing will
>    	definitely lead to the deaths of women. 

	But only to those women who choose to hurt others.

>    	I was addressing Tom K. specifically (and he *has* expressed
>    	the opinion that justice is served when women die from illegal
>    	abortions, which means that their deaths are desirable
>    	occurances in his eyes.)  No apology is warranted for addressing
>    	his beliefs in a note that was specifically directed to him.

	Not desirable. Just. Desirable would be no deaths at all.

>    	I'm not judging you (or even Tom K.)  I am *protesting* about
>    	the fact that Tom (and pro-lifers) judge others by the standards
>    	of their (your) own morality.

	Do you have opinions on the punishment of wrongdoers, or even
	what is wrongdoing? Then you are also judging others by the 
	standards of your own morality. While I don't say this is good or
	bad, I don't see how it can be avoided.
    
>    	I would prefer it if you made YOUR own choice about unplanned
>    	pregnancy, and allowed others to make THEIRS.  

	I don't have any problem with that at all. What I have a problem
	with, is when, once having made the choice, a person takes a
	positive action which causes others to be harmed.

>	While you may have the belief that fetuses are full human 
>	beings, there is ZERO moral or legal doubt that WOMEN are 
>	human. 

	Do you really believe this? Human history is full of occasions
	where entities currently recognized as "full persons" were
	held to be something less. 

					Tom_K

re: .458 (Tom)

>	I've "taken great pain" for the same reason I take great pain
>	when coding a piece of software - my name is on it, and I don't
>	like to be wrong. 

	   I'm fairly sure you didn't mean to, but as I read this
	you seem to be saying that religious arguments on this
	point are 'wrong'.  I don't view arguments based on religion
	as 'wrong', just underinformed.

>	And any person who is killed cannot miss the life that it never
>	had. Actually this could be wrong, because I suspect neither
>	of us knows for sure exactly what happens to a person once
>	they leave this world. But I would argue that the same thing
>	happens to each, because, after all, they are both living,
>	individual, entities.

	   Some claim to know beyond a shadow of a doubt what 
	happens beyond death.  Are they to be believed?  Some
	are absolutely certain death is eternal nothingness.
	Others are absolutely certain life is eternal, and death
	but a bridge to another life.  Some have an even more
	clearly defined concept of the afterlife, and they are 
	equally sure they are right.

	   Of course, we common folk may still harbor doubts,
	but it is unwise to assume others do.  This is one of the
	basic premises that plays a key role in determining the
	relative morality of this (and other) issues.  To assume
	that uncertainty is universal weakens your argument.

>	Outside of the fact that the year-old got to live a little longer,
>	yes. You say that that view is groundless. You are wrong. I've
>	provided multiple replies to support this position. You may choose
>	to ignore or disagree with them, but to say that they do not exist
>	in incorrect.

	   Writing several replies does not ensure that there is
	any content to be examined.  You have stated repeatedly
	that a fetus is a full-fledged human, and have even 
	claimed that science supports this position.  I then 
	entered text showing you that science does not support
	your opinions.  You have since failed to respond with
	any data showing that science does support your opinion.
	Thus, I must assume that you either have no such data,
	or have as yet been unwilling to enter it.  Which is it?

>>	A fetus indeed cannot survive independantly of a
>>	host human body, whereas all humans [even those on life-support
>>	systems] do so.
>
>	This is incorrect. Where did that life support system come from?
>	[Hint: human host is a valid answer]

	   Come, come, Tom!  You bandy words but do not address
	the point.  A 6-week old fetus cannot survive outside
	of a womb.  A 65-year-old in a coma, and being supported
	by a life support system could.  As the fetus is completely
	dependent on the host female, its rights are irrevocably tied
	to hers, and are in fact limited by hers.  Since a life 
	support machine has no rights of its own, your analogy is
	invalid, because it is not the moral equivalent of a host
	human. 

>	No, you would simply be obligated to show why the definition put
>	forward is incorrect.

	   Read replies 401-404.


- Greg

    
    Tom_K, could you please reply to .266?
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

	see .197

		Tom_K

< Note 183.458 by EVER11::KRUPINSKI "Thank you for using VAXnotes" >

>	But I would also be condemned if someone were to see me rob a
>	bank. I avoid that condemnation by not robbing banks, not by
>	killing the person who might see me.

   I hope I'm misunderstanding what you wrote in the above quoted
paragraph, but are you trying to say that you feel that women who
need abortions have committed some kind of crime by engaging in sex?
(I got that from your statement that you avoid condemnation by not
robbing banks, and I assume that "robbing banks" is an analogy to
"getting pregnant when you didn't want to".)

 RE: 183.462                    
 TALLIS::ROBBINS                                      
                                 
<< Note 183.458 by EVER11::KRUPINSKI "Thank you for using VAXnotes" >

>>	But I would also be condemned if someone were to see me rob a
>>	bank. I avoid that condemnation by not robbing banks, not by
>>	killing the person who might see me.

>   I hope I'm misunderstanding what you wrote in the above quoted
>paragraph, but are you trying to say that you feel that women who
>need abortions have committed some kind of crime by engaging in sex?
>(I got that from your statement that you avoid condemnation by not
>robbing banks, and I assume that "robbing banks" is an analogy to
>"getting pregnant when you didn't want to".)
    
    
    This brought some questions to my mind as well.  Thinking this 
    way about abortion totally leaves out the responsibility of the
    man in all of this.  I would like to ask EVER11::KRUPINSKI a
    question.  You have stated that you view a woman who has an
    abortion as a murderer.  Do you also view the responsible male
    as a murderer as well?  There are many scenarios that could be
    described here.
    
     1. The father denies his paternity and abandons the woman.
    
     2. The father accepts his paternity and also demands that the
        woman has an abortion.
    
     3. The father is a rapist.
    
     4. The father is incestuous.

     5. The father is supportive and agrees with the woman that
        abortion would be best.
    
    

     Do you have any thoughts around these?
    
     Carole

    Jeez, Tom, that certainly looks as though any self-serving act by the
    biological father absolves him from all subsequent responsibility.
    
    I presume, then, that if the biological mother were to give birth
    and then leave the baby to fend for itself, she too would be absolved
    of responsibility in your eyes?  Or does the mother somehow retain
    more responsibility?
    
    							=maggie       
    
    (must be my scots blood...I feel some precognition coming on)

    	RE:  .464
    
    	> ...contract to commit murder.  Punishable as such.
    
    	Ok, as long as you brought up your suggested consequences
    	for abortion...
    
    	Do you support the death penalty for women and men who
    	make the decision to abort a pregnancy (or would you
    	prefer life inprisonment?)
    
    	What about the people who have had abortions in the past
    	(while it was legal)?  Do you think that the government
    	should go back and find those millions of women and men
    	who agreed to aborted pregnancies (and do you hope to
    	see all of them executed en masse, or would you be
    	satisfied with seeing tens of millions of Americans
    	spend their lives behind bars?)
    
    	How about those who performed abortions?  Death or life
    	inprisonment for them?

 RE: 183.464                    
 EVER11::KRUPINSKI 


>re .463

>	Do you also view the responsible male as a murderer as well? 

>	You bet. If both the father and mother decide that they are going
>	to kill this baby, they are both responsible, no?


>	In each of the scenarios you gave, I have based my answers on the
>	assumption that the mother has an abortion in concurrence with the
>	wish of the father. If this is incorrect, I'll have to ask you to
>	provide more specifics, so I do not have to make such assumptions.



    >>     1. The father denies his paternity and abandons the woman.

    >	If the father has abandoned the women, I don't see how he could 
    >	be part of the decision making process. After all, you said
    >	he has abandoned the mother.

     His abandonment of the woman is his participation in the decision
     making process.
        
    >>     2. The father accepts his paternity and also demands that the
    >>        woman has an abortion.

    >  Same as a women, contract to commit murder. Punishable as such.
    
    
    
     >>3. The father is a rapist.
    
     >  Again, I don't understand how he gets to be part of the decision.

     You really don't see that the rapist is the one responsible for
     the pregnancy?  You really don't see why a woman or young girl
     would/could not go through with such a pregnancy?

     
     >>    4. The father is incestuous.

   
     >	Ditto.

     You really don't see that the incestuous perpetrator is the one 
     responsible for the pregnancy?  You really don't see why a woman
     (actually most likely a young girl) would/could not go through 
     with such a pregnancy?

    >>  5. The father is supportive and agrees with the woman that
    >>    abortion would be best.
    
    >	 Same as a women, contract to commit murder. Punishable as such.
    
    >	         				Tom_K

    
    I really don't see much humanity or compassion in this approach,
    or mercy.
    
    Carole

Re:  .466, on Tom_K's proposed penalties for abortion:

>    	What about the people who have had abortions in the past
>    	(while it was legal)?

Let's be careful here.  Tom_K seems to be proposing to criminalize abortion,
but he doesn't seem to me to be advocating revolution to accomplish it.  With-
out that, as long as we have the US Constitution in force, Congress may not
pass any ex-post facto law (which amendment was that?).  As a result, any
abortions performed while they were legal can never be made criminal (at
least in the US); only future abortions could be criminalized.  So discussing
currently legal abortions in this context can only lead down a rat hole.

						--Q

    Tom,

    In your note .458, you wrote "I've presented logical arguments." yet
    in your note .461, in response to Steve Marshall's civil request
    that you answer the question in .266, you referred to note .197.
    Logically, .197 cannot be a response to .266.  (And, logic aside,
    it does *not* address Steve's question (which obliquely refers to
    rape) at all.)

    Should I assume that you abandoned "logic" just this once to be
    gratuitously rude to Steve?  Should I assume that you don't know
    what logic is?  Or should I just assume that your definition of logic
    is not worth the juice it takes to spit on?

    In short, *I* have not seen you present one single, logical
    argument, because not once have I seen you use common terms as
    commonly defined nor have I read any definition of yours for alternate
    definitions.  And I have asked.

    Again.  In your .458, you replied "This is incorrect." to my
    assertion:
	A fetus indeed cannot survive independantly of a
	host human body, whereas all humans [even those on life-support
	systems] do so.

    Your claim is false.

    Now, I gather you feel -- or at least want others to feel -- that
    because some skilled humans make life support systems that somehow
    this qualifies as being dependant on a "host human body".  This is
    arrant nonsense.

    The first heart-lung machine, for example, was very simple:  The blood
    was drawn out of the patient into a plastic tube, the tube ran in a
    coil around a metal drum, and so back into the patient, with the
    blood forced along by a mechanical pump.  The blood was oxygenated
    by gas permeation through the plastic tubing.  Such a device will
    work on animals other than humans; such a device does not logically
    have to be made by humans.  It would work on a human -- or a dog --
    just as well if it were made by a Vulcan, a Wookie, or a Ferengi.

    Here is something else wrong with your claim.  The artificial
    lung is the oldest life support system I am familiar with.  It can
    and has done the breathing for any human, from newborn to aged.
    Yet it cannot do the breathing for a fetus, because a fetus does not
    have lungs!

    A teenaged girl-child with hands on her arms and eyes in her head
    can find materials in a forest to support a fetus within her, but
    she cannot support one anywhere outside herself.  However skilled
    the reader is, the reader cannot build *any* life support system
    from materials found in a forest.

    The two situations are ludicrously asymmetrical, and you will only
    make a fool of yourself if you continue to try to claim a symmetry.

    You have claimed that the definition of human put forth by one
    or more pro-choice people in this file is "incorrect" yet you have
    never once made a substantive (That's the key word here.) objection
    to it.  Let's try this again.  My definition of human is:

    	A native of the planet Earth, which has a highly convoluted
    	forebrain, and which can survive in its natural environment,
    	and do so without flukes.

    You may make factual statements explaining why this definition is
    incorrect, (Bald assertions, and false statements are insufficient.)
    or you may give your own definition.

    						Ann B.

    re .471
    
    Actually, I can't think of any definition of being human which
    would encompass Morton Downey.

    Re. 468:
    
    > Congress may not pass any ex-post facto law (which amendment was
    > that?). 
    
    "...No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed..." 
                          		- Article. I. Section. 9.
   
    "No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, 
    or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, ..."
                            		- Article. I. Section. 10. 
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

RE:  .469

>    	In his reply .444, Tom K. compared the situation with abortion
>    	laws with the punishment of Nazi war criminals at Nuremburg
>    	(to illustrate that what is *not* considered murder now could
>    	be considered murder in the future.)

Nuremburg, however, is not in the US, and abortions cannot be considered
as acts of war.  While it is conceivable that other places in the world
might choose to criminalize past abortions, it is inconceivable here
without a major revolution.  And none of Tom_K's past notes suggest to me
that he has any interest in that.

>    	My point is that I don't believe that abortion will *ever*
>    	be considered "murder" (no matter how many laws are passed
>    	against it.) 

I very much hope you are right.  Unfortunately, never is a *very* long
time...

						--Q

    re .474
    
    You simply cannot put someone on trial for something that was not
    illegal when the act was committed under the US constitution.
    
    So, even if abortion becomes illegal in the future, you won't be
    able to punish the doctors or women who have participated in legal
    abortions.
    
    Elizabeth

Re:  .475

>    You simply cannot put someone on trial for something that was not
>    illegal when the act was committed under the US constitution.

That was precisely my point.

							--Q

    re: .477 (Tom)
    
    	   You really have gone off the deep end this time, old boy.
    
>	I hold that religious arguments are based upon faith. That makes
>	arguments based upon religion contingent not only on faith, but
>	upon the same faith that the proponent of the argument holds.
>	Since this is not the case with the audience I was addressing,
>	making a point on a religious basis would appear impossible.
    
    	   Tom, I made tha assertion that your argument was religious
    	in origin because you have not shown one bit of verifiable data
    	or significantly accurate and factual dialogue.  You have, in fact,
    	offered us nothing more than your repititious assertion that
    	abortion is murder and aborters are murderers.  Are you willing
    	to back these ridiculous statements with any facts?  
    
>>	Since a life support machine has no rights of its own, your analogy 
>>	is invalid, because it is not the moral equivalent of a host
>>	human. 
>
>	The humans who expended their time (life) in the design and 
>	construction of the machine have rights. They are the host.
>	They have simply found a way to make being a host more efficient.

    	   Tom, that is undoubtedly the lamest excuse for an argument
    	I have ever heard.  Yes, those people have rights... they have
    	the right to the career of their choice, pal.  And if their
    	career decision involves creating machines that supports lives,
    	it does not in any way bestow rights upon the machinery they
    	create.  
    
    	   I'm asking you now to provide us with some data, Tom.  Something
    	more than your foolish prancing and capering.  You have made the
    	claim that science backs your position.  As an honorable man, I
    	invite you to stand behind your words and show us where science
    	supports your positions.
    
    	- Greg

    Since a number of later responses in this string have now been deleted
    so as to resolve some problems with offensive language, might I
    ask that people check through the remainder of the string (from
    around 450 on, I'd guess without really looking) and, if your response
    has been orphaned by the deletions, delete it too.  If we're careful,
    we can prune the topic back to a useful re-starting point without
    damage.
    
    Thank you.
    
    						=maggie

I heard on he 11 p.m. news last night that the state of Missouri will be 
the first to challenge the Roe vs. Wade decision.  This has been accepted 
by the Supreme Court for review this spring ( April I believe the news 
stated).

Given the past dialogue in =wn='s, I HOPE each person will get involved
(however they can) in lobbying their particular position.

It is *my opinion* that if _all_ the voices are heard, not just the 
loudest, the Roe vs. Wade decision will be upheld.


~robin

    
    The supreme court isn't influenced by the "voice" of the people.
    It goes against their function. When the court had a liberal majority,
    this worked to protect the rights of unpopular groups against the
    tyranny of the majority. Now, if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, it
    looks like the tyranny of the _minority_ may prevail.
    
    If we lived in Missouri or other states that will be likely
    to ban abortion, we could have more of a voice, by lobbying the
    elective branches. Since most of us in this conference (if I am
    not mistaken) live in Massachusetts, our voices won't really mean
    much unless a) we get a Republican legislature and governor (unlikely)
    or b) the federal government proposes either legal or administrative
    bans on abortion (more likely).
    
    As far as Roe vs. Wade, all we can do is wait and hope...
    
    Roberta
                                                                   

    It is  a  well  known  comment  that  "The Supreme Court reads the
    election  returns."  They are affected directly by appointment and
    indirectly by responding to social mores. Roberta is quite correct
    in stating that we should lobby our (state) elected officials.

    As for  Roe  v Wade, I'm not sure that overturning it would be bad
    for  the pro-choice forces. I should note that I am pro-choice, so
    I'm  arguing  this  on tactical grounds. I'm aware that this is an
    unusual  opinion, so let me start justifying it with some history. 

    The constitutional   protection  of  the  "Right  to  privacy"  is
    relatively  new. It started in the early part of this century with
    Justices  Holmes  and Brandeis as the principal proponents. In the
    mid  60's  Justice  Douglas  wrote  the  decision  in  Griswold v.
    Connecticut   in   which  he  overturned  a  law  barring  selling
    contraceptives  (even  to married couples, several friends of mine
    remember  what a nuisance it was to get around the law) citing the
    right  to  privacy  and in particular the "sanctity of the marital
    bedroom."  The argument was that the right of privacy must protect
    the  marital  bedroom from scrutiny, and by extension the purchase
    of contraceptives to be used there. The argument clearly holds for
    laws  barring  the  use  of contraceptives, but is a little weaker
    regarding  laws  prohibiting  the sale of contraceptives (Consider
    the same argument used to justify the sale of marijuana for use in
    the  same  marital  bedroom.)  All  in  all  a  good  decision. It
    stretched  the  right of privacy somewhat, but is a solidly argued
    decision  clearly  in  tune  with  the social mores of the time. I
    don't believe that it was a particularly controversial decision.

    In the early 70's there was a move towards legalizing abortion. By
    the  time  Roe  v.  Wade  was  decided in early 1973, New York and
    California  had  legalized abortion. (I think several other states
    had  as  well,  but  I  was  still  in  high  school,  so I wasn't
    completely aware of the details.) Several more states were well on
    the  way  to  legalizing  abortion. The debates were loud, but not
    terribly  bitter,  and  there  were  almost  no people calling the
    opponents "murderers" or other similar terms.

    Roe v.  Wade  changed  the debate to an extremely bitter, divisive
    one,  and  mobilized the "Right to Life" movement. I don't believe
    that  that  movement  would  have  been nearly as strong if states
    legalized abortion one by one over the next few years. Roe v. Wade
    is  not  very  good  law.  It  tries  to expand the privacy of the
    marital  bedroom  argument  from Griswold, but the expansion isn't
    really  convincing. There are other laws dealing with what one can
    do  with one's body even if there is no argument about the fetus's
    rights (suicide is illegal in many states, taking certain drugs is
    illegal),  so  why  this particular action to one's body should be
    protected is unclear. It really is possible to allow contraception
    without  allowing  abortion by following the logic of Griswold. In
    summary,  I  like  the result, but don't like the logic. For these
    reasons I think that Roe v Wade was a tactical mistake on the part
    of  the  pro-choice forces, and that we would have been better off
    fighting for legislation on a state by state basis.  

    As for the current lawsuits, I think we may be seeing the worst of
    both  worlds  if they continue. The supreme court is allowing more
    and  more  limitations to be put on abortion without outlawing it.
    This  effectively  means  that  the rich can get abortions and the
    poor can't. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, there would be a large
    movement  to  get  states  to allow abortions. (I find it unlikely
    that the court would rule that life begins at conception and force
    states  to  outlaw  abortions.) As long as only the poor can't get
    abortions I don't expect a major outcry. This society has a strong
    bugger  thy  neighbor  component,  so  I  don't  expect  to see us
    protecting  the  weak.  Remember  that  the Vietnam war ended soon
    after the draft lottery was instituted and student deferments were
    eliminated.  As  long  as  it was poor ghetto kids getting killed,
    there were demonstrations which produced some wonderful songs, but
    no  real  change. Once middle-class boys started to get killed the
    nation  turned against the war, and the war ended quickly. I'm not
    sure  if  we  will  get  a  really strong reaction on abortions as
    people  with  enough  money  can  go  to Canada, the Carribean, or
    Europe to get a legal abortion, so they may not feel threatened by
    U.S.  anti-abortion laws. The fate of abortion law in this country
    may  ultimately  hinge on how threatened the middle class feels by
    having to leave the country to get an abortion.

--David

    re:.487
    
    I'm more inclined to believe that the Vietnam War ended not because
    of the change in social status of the boys killed in 'Nam, but
    because ending the war was a surefire method for Nixon to get
    re-elected. The timing of the preliminary stages of the pullout
    suggests this.
    
    --- jerry

re .487

>    It is  a  well  known  comment  that  "The Supreme Court reads the
>    election  returns."  They are affected directly by appointment and
>    indirectly by responding to social mores. 

	While this is true, the Justices make an effort not to be. This
	is as it should be, as the Court should be in the business of 
	consistent interpretation of the law, rather than making law
	as the politics of the members change.

>	In the mid  60's  Justice  Douglas  wrote  the  decision  in
>	Griswold v. Connecticut   in   which  he  overturned  a  law

	Minor nit: Douglas didn't overturn the law, the Court did, with
	Douglas authoring the opinion of the Court.

					Tom_K

    I find it rather frustrating that the only responses to David's
    thoughtful and well written note were a couple of nit pics.
    
    Thank you David for your summary of the situation in a hard case.
    
    Bonnie

re .490

	I don't consider the first point of .489 a nit.

	However, I suspect that the lack of replies to David's
	thoughtful and well written note is because the note
	was thoughtful and well written.


						Tom_K

Yeah Tom. I've had several women ask me offline why no one replyed to a
particular reply of theirs. And my answer is almost invariably - 'because there
was nothing else to say!'
	Mez

  I don't agree that the demonstration in D.C. was/will be any more of a
"carnival" atmosphere than the pro-life demonstrations that have occured.
Different sentiments and different ways of expressing those feelings, yes.

  And although their may be a religious overtone to most of the pro-choice
demonstrations and blockades, the mannerisms of the publicized clinic protestors
and the D.C. pro-life marchers (which I assume will be there, once again,
towards the end of this month) have been, IMHO, less than Christian.

  This aside, too often its the pro-life people who appear to have the majority
in this country simply because they are the more outspoken group.  That's not
to say that the majority of Americans agree with them.  Massings like this are
important to demonstrate that the pro-choice lobby is often a silent one.

    Marge, thanks for your .494; both sides do indeed need to be heard
    here.
    
    						=maggie

Re: Marge Davis

  How true; that's the one thing that jumps out at you when you read the
text of Roe v. Wade: its just waiting to be killed.  The restrictions that
Missouri wants to put on women are, IMHO, are probably legal within the context
of that Supreme Court decision (i.e. fetal testing to determine out-of-womb
viability).  I won't even get into the mess associated with basing that decision
on a right to privacy -- that all by itself is a legally tenuous argument. Given
the current court makeup, the outcome could very well be a foregone conclusion.

  Which is why the massing on D.C. is going to be so important; the lawmakers
have got to realize that the "pro-choice" lobby isn't neccessarily silent and
does constitute a large number of voting-age people who could very well vote
them out of office.  Its so sad when a few senators, like Hatch and Helms make
it sound like everyone is anti-choice.  That just ain't so.

  Because Roe v. Wade is going to be substantially changed this term, I think
that it is extremely important that drugs such as RU-486 (hope that's the
right name) should become legalized in the U.S.  Even if its by the back route
of being an aid in combatting breast cancer (which was one of its initial
selling points).

    
    re .494
    
    I, too, think it's important to listen to the arguments on both
    sides of the abortion issue.  (Although I've never seen anyone change
    her or his mind about abortion based on the arguments of another.)
    
    As to the "carnival" atmosphere comment, all I can say is that if
    you've ever attended a large political rally or a protest, you know
    that even in the most solemn event there is a feeling of excitement
    that comes with being part of a movement.  I think it has something
    to do with seeing a formerly disenfranchised group taking power,
    stopping trafic, making themselves visible.  I look forward to the
    March on April 9 both because I want to make sure that my voice
    and the voice of those who believe as I do are heard and because
    I want to feel that connection to the thousands (maybe hundreds
    of thousands!) of women and men who are willing to risk arrest in
    order to defend a woman's right to choose.  I don't think those
    two desires are contradictory.  In order to keep fighting we
    need to find ways to keep ourselves energized; I suspect the planned
    rally in Washington has both goals in mind.
    
    Justine                      

The following letter and reply to Ann Landers relates to this
discussion.

>Ann Landers - Boston Globe 1-17-1988

Dear Ann Landers

An acquaintance of mine who heard her biological clock ticking had
no good prospects on the horizon so she picked a guy and got herself 
pregnant. The sap married her.

After the blessed event, they separated. The biological clock continued
to tick so she got herself in a family way again (same jerk). He
begged her to get an abortion, but she refused. Five years later,
El Jerko is supporting two kids that he neither planned nor wanted.
They lie 2,000 miles away and he sees them once a year. Personally
I think the guy is a saint.

If a woman has the right to choose an abortion, shouldn't the man have the
right to demand taht she end an accidental pregnancy rather than pay
$100,000 over the next 20 years to support a child that he will probably
never know?

It sees to me that the woman gets a big break while the poor slob who
only wanted a little action is at her mercy.

I know your old song. "It takes two to tango," but my point is that
today a woman can end the consequences of a meaningless affair
inexpensively and simply, but the guy doesn't have that option. If
she chooses to abort, he's home free. If not, he's on the hook for
the next 18 years. Sound fair to you? Not to me.

Meditating in the Midwest

and Ann replies

I just love the phrase 'she got herself pregnant." No one who uses it
has ever been able to explain exactly how this extraordinary feat is
accomplished.

Since it's the woman's body we're talking about, she should have the
right to decide what happens to it. Guys who are looking for "a little
action" should be aware taht reckless sex can be hazardous to their
health as well as damaging to their bank account. Question: What kind
of idiot lets this happen twice.?<

re 325.9

>	... is hardly an act of mob violence 

	My note specified mob rule, not mob violence.

>	She suggests that women go to jail in protest of a 
>	Roe v. Wade overturn.

	The way I read it, she suggests that many women will
	escape jail because of lack of adequate facilities.


						Tom_K

    Hi everyone.  Please excuse me if this has been posted already..
    
    At the bottom of this note is a copy of a letter addressed to our 
    Attorney General.  If you find the idea of women losing the right
    to choose abortion as terrifying as I do, I urge you to print it,
    sign it, and mail it in to:  American Civil Liberties Union, Department
    R, 132 West 43rd Street, New York, NY  10036.  They will forward
    it to the Justice Department.
    
    Thank you.
    
    Peace,
    Phyllis
    
    ps.  Please feel free to cross-post this anywhere. 
    
    *********************************************************************
    
    Attorney General Richard Thornburgh
    Justice Department
    
    
    
    Dear Mr. Attorney General:
    
         I understand that you have asked the Supreme Court to 
    overturn Roe v. Wade, the historic 1973 decision that recognized
    the constitutional right to choose an abortion.
    
         This decision gave every woman in the country the right to
    a safe and legal abortion, affirming the right of privacy.  It has
    dramatically improved the health and lives of millions of women.
    It has helped people to raise families when they are most able to
    provide love and support.
    
         Making abortion illegal will not stop abortion.  It will make
    it difficult at best, and life-threatening at worst.  All women
    will be affected, but it will be especially hard on poor people.
    As a sworn guardian of our Constitution, you understand how important
    it is that there be equal rights for everyone.
    
         I have no vote on the Supreme Court.  But since you represent
    my interests there, I hope you will urge the Court not to take away
    a fundamental constitutional right.
    
    
    
    
    _________________________________________
    Signature
    
    
    _________________________________________
    Name (Please Print)
    
    
    _________________________________________
    Address
    
    
    _________________________________________
    
    

    In a poll published today...
    
    61% of Americans answered yes to the question "if a woman wishes
    to have an abortion and her doctor agrees" she should be allowed
    to have one.
    11% Additional believed that she should be allowed under some
    circumstances.
    25 % felt that she should not be allowed to have an abortion
    

  I've become very suspicious of these "polls."  I heard the results of
one about 2 months ago that had, +- 3%, the majority not believing that
women should be allowed the choice of an abortion.

  What I find even more confusion that you have to look at the ages of the
people polled.  In particular, those numbers look familiar to the results of
a poll I saw a few weeks ago which had an age bias towards people under the
age of 25.  It seems to be that as the medium age increases there is less
tolerance of the abortion issue.

re: .504:

Are these the same 61% of Americans who think that the Bill of Rights
is a Communist plot?

If it's right, it doesn't matter how many people think it's wrong.
If it's wrong, it doesn't matter how many people think it's right.

Martin.

Ps: in case my own opinions aren't clear, let me state that I think
it's the woman's sole responsibility: not "woman + doctor" or "woman
+ priest" -- if a woman isn't committed to having a kid, she shouldn't
be forced to risk her own health/welfare.

The way to stop abortions is not by making them illegal, but by offering
real, committed, support services (health care, day care, social support)
to all families, irregardless of whether the woman is rich, poor, employed,
not employed, married, not married, or whatever.  If the fetus does have
a "right to life" it must be a right to a real, healthy life; not just
a right to existance.

Sweden has "free" abortions.  It also has full national health care,
12 months paid parental leave (this may be extended to 18 months),
5 (6?) weeks paid vacation, and a "child grant" system that pays
the parents of every child from birth to 16 years old about $200/year
($50/quarter) in pure cash.  The money just happens to be sent out
before spring break, summer vacation, school start, and Christmas,
so no child in Sweden needs to beg in the newspapers for presents.

This, in my opinion, is the *only* way to lower the rate of abortions.

M.

    
    A friend you hasn't yet learned to use notes would like any info
    about flights to the April demonstration in Washington.  I believe
    she called NOW (in Acton?) and got an out-of-date recording.
    
    If you have info, I'll forward it to her.  (Will also teach her
    how to use notes when I get back to the office - am home with
    the Digital flu.)
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy
    

    Tsk, tsk, Martin.  And you a science fiction fan.
    
    You left out the possibility of developing a technology for
    transferring a pregnancy from a woman who doesn't want it to
    someone who does.  (Guess who pays for it.)
    
    Okay, okay, so noone ever mentioned that as an alternative to
    you before.
    
    						Ann B.

RE: < Note 183.507 by SCARY::M_DAVIS "Smile out loud!" >

>    Martin, the system you refer to is known here as Socialism and it has
>    ....  The burgeoning economy of the U.S.since the end of World War II 
>    has not provided the discontent necessary to bring Socialism here.

Marge,

   I call myself a socialist (Marxist) and really have trouble with
   your definition.  A welfare state is not socialist.  Socialism is
   democratic ownership and control of the means of production by the
   workers.  This certainly does not describe Sweden!

   This relates to this abortion thusly: Women are producers of many things,
   but, uniquely, of children.  The class of power and privilege denies
   all workers their rights.  The fight against the right of woman to 
   control their own bodies, specifically when it come to reproduction,
   is just another example, albeit a particularly vicious one.

   The movement to further deny women their rights is correctly seen
   as an attack by the wealthy (mainly white men) on the poor (women,
   many of color).  It needs to be resisted in MANY ways.  One of these 
   ways is to write to the Attorney General, who stated that he was given 
   his 'marching orders' (literally war against woman) by Bush.

   I understand that such a letter was posted in this Note and was
   HIDDEN by the moderator.  May we please discuss why the moderator
   decided to make this letter inaccessible?

/Joel Finkel

    in re .511
    
    Joel,
    
    The note you refer to was set hidden to check if the wording
    was in violation of the Dec policies on solicitation. The
    moderators decided that it did not, and it is once again
    available to be read.
    
    Bonnie

    Heard on the radio this morning that the fundamentalists have changed
    their position to NO EXCEPTIONS.  No exception for rape, nor for danger
    to the mother's life, nor for incest, nor for any other reason. Period.
    And that they are criticizing Bush for advocating any exceptions at
    all.  I can only assume this is a political ploy, so they can get what
    they originally wanted and still claim that they compromised. 
    
    I'm generally not a political animal, and when I am I tend toward
    ultra-conservatism.  But this is one case where I just can't sit by and
    do nothing.  I don't believe I could bring *myself* to have an abortion
    (who knows till you're faced with it???), but I believe many of our
    forefathers died so others would have the freedom to choose a different
    alternative. 
    
    Yesterday I sent a contribution and a letter to NARAL -- National
    Abortion Rights Action League -- in Washington.  And today I'm printing
    off the letter in this note string, to send to the ACLU.  I can
    honestly say I never thought I'd agree with the ACLU on *anything*.
    Can't make the bus to Washington -- it's a fur piece from Texas.
    
    I have to keep pinching myself to make myself believe this is really
    happening!!!
    
    							Pat

    re .513
    Me, too, Pat, ... well, maybe I *can* believe it, but I didn't vote for
    the guy (Mr. Bush, I mean) anyhow, so I'm not among the folks who think
    they "bought and paid for" him anyhow.  As far as I can see, it is a
    form of slavery they are advocating - selective slavery, since it can
    only apply to us women - imagine being *forced by law* to bring a
    pregnancy that resulted from a rape to term??!!!!  I hope the "kinder,
    gentler" people who want to force us to go through this kind of thing
    will pay for our nervous breakdowns, suicide attempts, back-alley
    abortions, or expensive trips to more liberal (*kinder and gentler*!)
    foreign countries?  No??  I didn't really think so...
    
    For the record, let me state that I am pro-choice.  I didn't say
    "pro-abortion".  I don't think it ought to be the form of birth-control
    of choice, but I think a woman should not be a slave (I don't think
    *anyone* should be a slave).
    
    /Charlotte

    I think the anti-choice forces have succeeded in part of their
    propaganda: they've made it necessary to *explicitly* disavow any
    pro-abortion feelings...feelings which I'd bet 99.99% of us don't
    have to begin with!
    
    We're all in the same boat, I think:  having an abortion is typically
    only slightly less terrible than not having one; there are no really
    *good* solutions, usually, and the only thing any of us can do is make
    sure that the right to choose for ourselves and live with the
    consequences afterward doesn't get taken away by people with no
    personal stake in the outcome.
    
    						=maggie 

    re: .515
    
    Maggie,
    
    You've hit the nail on the head!  My reticence to protest at this
    time is because I *don't* want to make a statement *for* abortion
    and I think so many of the pro-choice demos right now sound that
    way!  You're right, of course, that the "other side" has brought
    this about.  I've been home recovering from the flu and watched
    something on C-SPAN with pro-choice speakers representing various
    religious organizations.  They were very careful to emphasize the
    *difficulty* of making a decision to abort and, also, that abortion
    is a *moral decision* and women are *moral decision-makers*!  

re .514

	Similarly, I am appalled that people advocate the execution
	of an innocent child because the father was a rapist.


						Tom_K

    	RE:  .517
    
    	> Similarly, I am appalled that people advocate the execution
    	> of an innocent child because the father was a rapist.
    
    	No one here has advocated any such thing.  Anyone who would
    	try to suggest that such a thing *HAS* been advocated here
    	would be telling a boldface, blatant lie.
    

    Hey, I just had a great idea. Let's up the ante by using
    highly-charged, emotional words...

    I suspect we all heard a similar account on the radio that made it
    *appear* that the "pro-life" movement has changed its position to a
    more radical stance: *no exceptions*.
    
    Without any further evidence, I would be extremely wary of this
    information.  I sounded to me like NPR, which I assume is the
    source of this information, was interviewing a particular person
    representing a particular group who stated the "no exceptions"
    view.  I doubt that she could be called representative of the
    entire anti-abortion movement.  Its easy when you take such an extreme
    view on this subject that your views can make it on the radio,
    especially when you come out saying that "President Bush didn't go far
    enough."

re .518

	There you go again...

				Tom_K

    	RE:  .521
    
    	You're no Reagan, Tom.
    

re .522

>    	You're no Reagan, Tom.
    
	Thank you for the compliment.

				Tom_K

    
    re 183.517>
    
                       Overheard conversation 10 years and 9 months
                       from now.
    
    Gee Bob your father's a postman?!?  Mine's  a rapist.  Yeah but
    he's a neat guy though and after he gets out of prison in 25 years
    he says he'll take care of me.  Yeah that's because they Mom away
    too after she wigged out because the state made her carry me to
    term.  That and the fact that after being raped she was never the
    same.  But hey I'm happy.  I make good money selling crack on the
    streets.  Want some?
                                              
    re .520>   BAITED
               I know I shouldn't have... but it was so fat and juicy
              just wiggling on a fishhook
    
    Luis

re: .507:

    Martin, the system you refer to is known here as Socialism ...

Gosh, I always thought it was pro-life, pro-family enlightened capitalism.

One thing that bothers me about the organized anti-abortion movement
is the tinge of blood-lust that seems to be attached to their
demonstrations.  You don't seem to see these people marching for
better day care facilities, better working environments for parents,
affordable health care, etc.  This can be simplified to "life
begins a conception and ends at birth."

Following the work of, primarily, Alva and Gunnar Myrdal, the Swedish
government discovered that the low birth rate was, in part, due to the
economic hardships of child-rearing.  Making apartments affordable,
tax breaks to parents of young children, day care centers, and a
generally family-centered politic was the solution they turned to.

Martin.

Well, maybe I'm rising to the bait too, but the pedant in me can't resist.

 If you make the assumption that life begins at conception, then an abortion is
the taking of a human life.  The taking of a human life is (legally) homicide.
Whether you call it murder, manslaughter (or whatever the american equivalent
is) or execution, you are taking a human life.

 If you make the assumption that life begins at birth, then an abortion does NOT
involve the taking of a human life, and is a surgical process like many others.

 There seems to be no accepted evidence as to when life starts (Joan Rivers once
said that life starts when the dog dies and the children move away, which is
probably excessive!). A few years ago, under British law, "life" (for purposes
of defining murder) required that a fetus/baby/thing demonstrate the ability to
survive unattached to its mother. I don't know. And if you know, and CAN PROVE
when life starts, please let us in on the secret.

 Look, I disagree with Tom K's stance on abortion. I am strongly pro-choice. But
please, try to remember that Tom is not "using emotionally charged words" to "up
the ante". He is describing abortion surprisingly calmly considering his
beliefs.

				Nigel 

    
    Well, I'm trying to put a letter together which I can send to the
    Attorney General, my 'congress critters', and eventually to my state
    representatives.  I need help finding a quotation.  The gist of
    it is that 'all it takes for evil to succeed is for enough good
    men to remain silent'.  Can anyone out there help?  (This will be
    the first time in my life that I have written to any politician
    about anything - but the time has come to be heard.)
                                                        
    There is a local Boston talk show host who is pointing out repeatedly
    that there are individuals of good conscience on both sides of this
    argument.  Both sides need to keep in mind that their opponents
    are not the devil incarnate.  It is a highly emotional issue, probably
    THE moral issue of the day.  Let us try to listen as well as speak.
    
   		Alison
                          

    Alison, the quote you're looking for is typically attributed (though no
    record can actually be found of it in any of his writings) to Edmund
    Burke, an english statesman and member of Parliament during the
    american Revolution, and goes "The only thing necessary for the triumph
    of evil is that enough good men should do nothing". 
    
    						=maggie

   
    =maggie,
    
    Thank you.  I wanted to be sure to get it right.
    
    Alison

re .524

                       Overheard conversation 10 years and 9 months
                       from now.
    
	Gee Bob your father's a postman?!?  Mine's  an engineer.  Him and
	my Mom, thy chose me, you know. I'm glad my "real" Mom didn't kill
	me, because I really like my Mom and Dad. I want to go to school,
	and be an engineer, just like my Dad.

re .525

	You might want to check out the difference between doing someone
	harm, and not benefiting them.

re .526

>	A few years ago, under British law, "life" (for purposes
>	of defining murder) required that a fetus/baby/thing demonstrate 
>	the ability to survive unattached to its mother. 

	With the advent of in-vitro fertilization, where the new baby
	lives and begins to develop unattached to the mother, I think 
	that a strong case can be made that a newly fertilized egg meets 
	this test.


							Tom_K

    You think so?  Fine.  Then the egg can develop without the
    mother, right?
    
    And the entire idea of abortion is mistaken.  Just pop out the
    little fetus, and let it grow on its own.
    
    No?   Then I would suggest that you rethink your ideas.
    
    						Ann B.

    re:530
    
    >>re .524
    >>
    >>                 Overheard conversation 10 years and 9 months
    >>                   from now.
    >>
    >>	Gee Bob your father's a postman?!?  Mine's  an engineer.  Him and
    >>	my Mom, thy chose me, you know. I'm glad my "real" Mom didn't kill
    >>	me, because I really like my Mom and Dad. I want to go to school,
    >>	and be an engineer, just like my Dad.

    It seems that your easy solution and simplistic views carry over
    into subjects other than abortion, such as the implications re:
    adoption.  It has always amazed me that so many people feel compelled
    to expound ad nauseum on topics about which they have no experience.
    
    
re .526

>	A few years ago, under British law, "life" (for purposes
>	of defining murder) required that a fetus/baby/thing demonstrate 
>	the ability to survive unattached to its mother. 

>>	With the advent of in-vitro fertilization, where the new baby
>>	lives and begins to develop unattached to the mother, I *think* 
>>	that a strong case can be made that a newly fertilized egg meets 
>>	this test.


  							Tom_K 
                       
    
    *Think* again.  A majority of in-vitro fertilizations are unsuccessful,
    end up being spontaneous abortions.  In-vitro fertilization does
    not meet this test.
    
    Laura
     

<    <<< Note 183.530 by EVER11::KRUPINSKI "Thank you for using VAXnotes" >>>
<
<re .524
<
<                       Overheard conversation 10 years and 9 months
<                       from now.
<    
<	Gee Bob your father's a postman?!?  Mine's  an engineer.  Him and
<	my Mom, thy chose me, you know. I'm glad my "real" Mom didn't kill
<	me, because I really like my Mom and Dad. I want to go to school,
<	and be an engineer, just like my Dad.
<<
       Gee Bob your father's a postman? I grew up in an orphanage. Then
       they cut the funding and I was out on the street. I wanted a
       family so desparately but no one would adopt me because I wasn't
       a perfect white baby. Why doesn't anybody love me? I feel like
       garbage, no one wants me. I didn't have the money to eat so I
       begain to sell my body, after a while I realised my soul had
       somehow slipped away too. Now I'm pregnant and I've got to get
       rid of it or I'll lose all my customers and have no way to
       survive. I hear there's a guy off Main street that will help me
       but the last girl that went there died. I'm afraid, please
       somebody HELP ME! liesl

	So the solution is to kill Bob's friend?

	I don't buy that.

					Tom_K

    Since we don't have time travel, Tom, that would not be possible.
    
    BTW, since 98% of teenage girls who carry to term do NOT give
    their babies up for adoption, your scenario is massively less
    likely that the original one.  (As we try to ignore the differences
    between voluntary pregnancy and involuntary servitude.)
    
    Or do you advocate the brainwashing of pregnant women, so that
    they will behave in ways you would find pleasant?
    
    						Ann B.

    
RE: "pro-life" "anti-abortion" movement:
    
    It really helps me to understand the issues when
    I can remember to substitute "anti-choice" for "pro-life" and
    also for "anti-abortion."  I am "anti-abortion" (not pro-abortion)
    and pro-choice.  Such a moral decision should be made by the woman,
    who is a moral-decision-maker.  
    
RE: in vitro fertilization
    
    This is just a mother-substitute and does not relate to viability
    at all.
    
    Nancy

    re .537 [really, more than half way to a thousand?]:
    
    > RE: in vitro fertilization
    > 
    > This is just a mother-substitute and does not relate to viability
    > at all.
      
    Actually, its just a sex (the verb) substitute.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

re .531

                  -< Still waiting for your definition, too. >-

	When people try to define other people as non-human, bad things
	happen. I refuse to play that game.

re .532

>    It seems that your easy solution and simplistic views carry over
>    into subjects other than abortion, such as the implications re:
>    adoption.  It has always amazed me that so many people feel compelled
>    to expound ad nauseum on topics about which they have no experience.

	Simple solutions to complex problems are better than complex ones.
	It also amazes me that some people think they know more than
	they do about other peoples range of experience.

    
>    *Think* again.  A majority of in-vitro fertilizations are unsuccessful,
>    end up being spontaneous abortions.  In-vitro fertilization does
>    not meet this test.

	I believe the question put was whether survivability is 
	demonstrable. Clearly, it is.

re .533

>             -< pull out of your middle class myopia see reality >-

	You might do well to pull out of *your* society is to blame
	and people have no responsibility for their lives myopia, and see
	some reality, yourself.

re .535

	I see no difference between killing Bob's friend now, or doing it
	10 years, 9 months in the future.

	I advocate brainwashing no one. I advocate refraining from killing
	innocent persons.

						Tom_K

SET FLAME=HIGH

	I think  the  thing that irritates me the MOST is the philosophy
	that allows one person (or the State) to control the way someone
	else  treats  his  or  her  body. How DARE anyone tell ME how to
	treat  MY  body. How DARE any man to tell any woman how to treat
	HER  body.  I don't care if you feel that the fetus is viable or
	not;  it is still PART of the WOMAN's body, and, as such, should
	fall under NO OTHER PERSON'S control. To allow the STATE to take
	control  of  ANY  PART  of  the woman's body, in particular, her
	uterus,  is  to approve of the most APPALLING intrusion into her
	privacy.

	Beyond this,  there's  the  PRACTICAL issue; viz., anti-abortion
	laws  DO NOT STOP ABORTION; they simply increase the DEATH RATES
	of  women  (read  POOR women). This is the case HISTORICALLY and
	there  is  NO  REASON to believe that it will not be the case in
	the  future. Women NEED the protection afforded by free abortion
	on  demand  as  well  as the SIMPLE COURTESY of being allowed to
	control their own bodies!

SET FLAME=LOW

/Joel Finkel

re .540

	No one's telling you what to do with your body, they are
	merely telling you what you may not do with someone elses,
	quite a reasonable thing, I'd say.

>	it is still PART of the WOMAN's body

	Which womans body is a fetus in an in-vitro dish a part of?
	How can a woman carrying a male child be both male and female?

					Tom_K

re: .541:
	How can a woman carrying a male child be both male and female?

Glad you asked: she is a woman because she has a vagina.  She is a male
because, during the nine months she is pregnant, she also has a penis.

Next question?

Martin.

    re .541 (chomping on the worm ... is that a hook?)
    
    I've never heard of a fetus in an in-vitro dish. I don't believe
    they wait eight weeks before attempting to reimplant. A fertilized
    egg, or embryo, is what you mean to say.
    
    When the egg in the dish can continue to exist in the dish while
    in undergoes the conversion from embryo to fetus to viable infant,
    then you've got a point, and the process of abortion can simply
    become a factory-based birthing. (I'm not suggesting this is
    a good idea!)
    
    However, the argument of when in the process an embryo or a fetus
    becomes a separate entity ("alive", "human", "registered to vote",
    etc.) is one which we're well aware there is no agreement on.
    So what's the point of the endless tit-for-tat? We can read notes
    with the same content as:
    
    	"Yes it is"
    	"No it isn't"
    	"Yes it IS"
    	"No it ISN'T"
    	"So's your old parent"
    	"That's not what I said"
    
    until the cows come home, and accomplish nothing but consume
    disk space and blood pressure medication.

    re: 538
    
    You're right!  I was thinking of the argument that Roe v Wade is
    flawed because the age of viability appears to be getting lower.
    It's the artificial life-support systems that can be used
    -- *these* are, in my opinion, an "artificial mother" and do 
    not at all prove viability. 

    re: .539
    
    So, Tom, about your range of experience...answer this:
    
       Are you an adoptee?
    
    

re .545

>	Are you an adoptee?

	Glad to answer that question. 


	It's none of your damn business.

				Tom_K

Re: Note 183.517

>re .514
>
>	Similarly, I am appalled that people advocate the execution
>	of an innocent child because the father was a rapist.
>
>    						Tom_K

    To be "innocent", one has to have conciousness.  Since conciousness
    is a property that requires a brain, an embryo certainly cannot
    be said to be innocent.
        

Re: Note 183.530
>>	A few years ago, under British law, "life" (for purposes
>>	of defining murder) required that a fetus/baby/thing demonstrate 
>>	the ability to survive unattached to its mother. 
>
>	With the advent of in-vitro fertilization, where the new baby
>	lives and begins to develop unattached to the mother, I think 
>	that a strong case can be made that a newly fertilized egg meets 
>	this test.

    Is the gist of this that if a woman changes her mind about an in-vitro
    fertilization after the fertilization has occurred, then she (by
    refusing to allow the newly-fertilized embryo to be implanted) is still
    committing murder?
            
    I agree with Tom's dislike of this choice of the point at which
    life begins.  It seems wrong to base a fundamental moral decision
    on the capabilities of current technology.  Hence, I would prefer
    a law that defined the start of life in terms of a certain level
    of brain activity, just as the end of life is often fixed.

    To argue that a brainless embryo is alive (in the sense that killing it
    would be murder) would require that one also argue that any doctor who
    switches off the life-support machine of a brain-dead person is a
    murderer, and the relatives who gave permission for the act are
    accomplices. Maybe you do feel this way.

    Just in case anybody pounces on my qualification of "alive", I accept
    that an embryo is technically alive, but only in the sense that
    a leg is alive - and amputation certainly isn't murder (is it?).
    
    Also, "potential for life" is not important - every cell in my body
    contains DNA that, if properly activated, could build a new "me". 
    I would hate to live (and wouldn't survive long) in a society that
    considers nail-biting to be a capital offence, though.
        
        
>>    *Think* again.  A majority of in-vitro fertilizations are unsuccessful,
>>    end up being spontaneous abortions.  In-vitro fertilization does
>>    not meet this test.
>
>	I believe the question put was whether survivability is 
>	demonstrable. Clearly, it is.

    
    This appears to be irrelevant.  The British law in question fixed the
    latest point at which abortion is legal according to "expert advice" as
    to when is the earliest point in a pregnancy that the foetus could
    survive independently of the mother.  The aim of this is to prevent
    abortion after the time at which the baby could be born.  It has
    nothing at all to do with in-vitro fertilization, unless someone is
    claiming that is it possible to go full-term in-vitro.  Clearly, it is
    not. 

re .547

	Then what crime is it guilty of?



	The whole point of the discussion of in-vitro fertilization is,
	I see it as supporting the position that, after conception,
	the (whatever word you want to use for a particular stage
	of development) is a clearly separate entity from the mother.
	It can not only survive without a mother, but grow. Technology
	has not advanced to the point where such an entity can develop
	totally outside a womb, but I suspect that no one will argue
	the impossibility of technology will never reach that point. 
	At any rate that is moot. 

	Also, just as clearly, at some point before birth, the 
	(whatever word you want to use for a particular stage of 
	development) is also clearly able to function independent 
	of the mother. It just doesn't make any sense to me that
	it is separate, the same, and then separate again.


							Tom_K

 Thanks, Tom.  I think I see the light at the end of the tunnel (and hopefully
it isn't an oncoming locomotive).

  I propose that we make abortion, as defined by the willful and active killing
of fetal/embryonic tissue, illegal.  That should make the anti-abortion folks
happy.  But, a lot of us also hold the belief that no woman should be forced
to carry a fetus to term if she doesn't want to.  Therefore, the obvious
solution would be for the woman to be able to, at any point during the
pregnancy, have that embryo/fetus removed from her uterus and have "technology"
be responsible for taking it to term. I doubt that anyone would have serious
objections to this.  If today's technology can't keep the fetus alive, then
so be it.

  Of course, putting a little reality into this, I'm sure that the anti-abortion
people will be more than willing to pay the medical costs associated with this
as well as take on the costs of caring for the child until it is adopted.  

   Hopefully there will be some company in the United States with
   enough courage to market the 'abortion pill' that has been 
   developed in France.  I can't remember it's name (U?-???), and
   I do not know if it as safe as it is effective.  But if it is, 
   then women will have a method that may make much of this discussion
   academic (in that anti-abortion laws will be un-enforceable).

   I do know that the Right to Life [of misery] movement has vowed 
   to establish a nation-wide boycott of any company that markets it.

   Does anyone know more about this pill?

/Joel Finkel

Re: < Note 183.548 by EVER11::KRUPINSKI "Thank you for using VAXnotes" >

>     	Then what crime is it guilty of?

    It is not guilty of any crime.  Guilt requires consciousness, just
    as much as innocence does.  An object without conciousness is neither
    guilty nor innocent: it just 'is'.
    

>	The whole point of the discussion of in-vitro fertilization is,
>	I see it as supporting the position that, after conception,
>	the (whatever word you want to use for a particular stage
>	of development) is a clearly separate entity from the mother.
>	It can not only survive without a mother, but grow. Technology
>	has not advanced to the point where such an entity can develop
>	totally outside a womb, but I suspect that no one will argue
>	the impossibility of technology will never reach that point. 
>	At any rate that is moot. 
>
>    	Also, just as clearly, at some point before birth, the 
>	(whatever word you want to use for a particular stage of 
>	development) is also clearly able to function independent 
>	of the mother. It just doesn't make any sense to me that
>	it is separate, the same, and then separate again.

    The same argument can be applied to skin cells.  It is becoming
    common practice in the treatment of burn victims to remove skin
    tissue and grow it outside the body.  When the cells have multiplied
    sufficiently, they can be grafted back to repair the burn damage.
    The skin cells have therefore demonstrated that they are "clearly
    able to function independent of" their owner.  It makes perfect
    sense to me that they are separate and then the same.
    

    
    The PBS program "All Things Considered" will have a segment on the
    abortion pill today.

    re: .546
    
            
>re .545

>	Are you an adoptee?

>>	Glad to answer that question. 


>>	It's none of your damn business.

>>				Tom_K
    
    
    Given the lack of any further evidence, other than the fact that
    your response is very telling, I maintain my original position that
    you have absolutely no idea, not the slightest clue, about what
    it feels like to be an adoptee because you aren't adopted,
    and therefore you have no business defining their experience. 
    
    It is sophomoric and wishful to thinking to believe that simple
    solutions are 'the best answer' to the complex problems that are
    represented in this notes string.
    
    But then, if society continues to lie to adoptees and keep them
    ignorant of their families of origin, why we would then never have
    to worry about a child or adult adoptee learning that his/her genetic
    father was a rapist.  And of course, the psychological damage to
    a woman who would be forced to carry a fetus to full-term (if pregnancy
    was the result of rape) would be insignificant, as would be the
    psychological implications of relinquishing the infant, once born.
    As we all know, women just forget about these things, it's sort
    of like having a corn removed from a big toe.
    
    And I'm sure that you know all about these things from first-hand
    experience, Tom.  You know what it feels like to be raped, you know
    what it feels like to be pregnant, you know what if feels like to
    give birth and then give over that infant to someone else, and then
    be treated like the scum of the earth for having relinquished that
    infant.
    
    Gee, these solutions that you propose sure are simple, especially
    if you never, ever think about the consquences.
    

RE: .541
>>  No one's telling you what to do with your body, they are
>>  merely telling you what you may not do with someone elses,
>>  quite a reasonable thing, I'd say.

    How can you possibly state that preventing a woman from having an 
    abortion is not telling her what to do with her body?  All emotion 
    aside (if that's possible), that statement makes no sense to me 
    whatsoever. 

							Pat

re .549

	I had similar ideas as I was writing .548. I think its the
	most promising avenue for a solution to come around in a 
	while, but there are still a lot of things to resolve.
	But definitely a train of thought worth pursuing.

re .551

	Sounds like poison, by another name...

re .552

	Well, if it isn't guilty, clearly it's innocent. So why execute it?

	As far as I know, skin cells never have developed into adults.

re .554

	You are, of course, free to believe whatever you like. But since
	you don't know me from Adam, I'd trust myself more than you, 
	about what my range of experience is, or how much thinking I had
	done about a particular matter.

>	It is sophomoric and wishful to thinking to believe that simple
>	solutions are 'the best answer' to the complex problems that are
>	represented in this notes string.
	And, if you like to spend more time on problems than they require
	to solve, you are also free to do that, but in general, I rather
	spend the time solving a new problem.
    
re .555

	Do whatever you like with your body. But the body of the child
	belongs to it, and to no one else. Don't mess with it.

							Tom_K

re: experiential knowledge

I'd be interested in how valid people think this is, and why. In fact, I'm
_particulary_ interested in people who think it's either not valid (ie -
meaningless in the face of logic, or too personal, or just not interesting).
This is the second string (the first escapes me right now) where I found noters
responding to experiential questions by not responding (as opposed to
explaining why they weren't responding, or plain not responding).

The reason I'm interested in folks who don't think it's useful input is because
I do. So, I'm interested in other points of view. But feel free to bolster mine
if it agrees with yours :-).

I don't know if I'm making a mistake by putting this in the hottest topic in
this notesfile, but I feel such a question needs context. And this sure is one.
	Mez

    RE: .556
        
re .554

>>	You are, of course, free to believe whatever you like. But since
>>	you don't know me from Adam, I'd trust myself more than you, 
>>	about what my range of experience is, or how much thinking I had
>>	done about a particular matter.
            
    Except that this is not an issue of trusting one's self, it is an issue
    of real-life experience.  Thinking about and issue does not give one
    experience with the issue. 
    
>	It is sophomoric and wishful to thinking to believe that simple
>	solutions are 'the best answer' to the complex problems that are
>	represented in this notes string.
    
>>	And, if you like to spend more time on problems than they require
>>	to solve, you are also free to do that, but in general, I rather
>>	spend the time solving a new problem.
    
    Once again, but with a little more coherence...how about re-writing
    the above paragraph, but this time in English.  I think your logic
    train derailed after the first comma in the sentence.
    

RE: .556
>>    re .555
>>
>>	Do whatever you like with your body.
>>      ...
    
    Doing whatever I like with my body might be to have a D&C.

re .558

	.556 addressed two points of .554. I will reiterate: You have
	attempted to invalidate what I say by saying I have no experience
	in the matter. You have no way of knowing that, yet you make the
	claim. You don't know what you are talking about. 

	There is a problem. The problem can be solved by approach A.
	The same problem can be solved by approach B. Approach A is simple,
	and takes up little time. Approach B is complex, and takes up lots
	of time. I'd opt for approach A. If you want to opt for approach B,
	that's OK. But I'd rather use the savings of time of using approach
	A to work on some other problem.

re .559

	Doing whatever I like with my body might be to point a large caliber
	firearm in your direction and pull the trigger. Each of is is 
	responsible for the consequences of our respective actions.



						Tom_K

    fwiw, pryde::ervin tried, she really did.  
    I have tried to be patient and give Tom-k the benifit of the doubt, 
    maybe even try to understand where he gets his attitude from.  
    but I read his replies.......
    and get the impression that he is willing to force women to carry
    to term (whatever name he wants to use in the state of developement)
    risk their lives carrying "redundant statement on state of growth
    again", but what is he or other people in the "movement" doing 
    to help establish the wellbeing of these unwanted (again
    redundants) once they are born.  are there adoption agencies being
    setup?  are they donating time and money to help establish these?
     are they helping with time and money to help feed, clothe, educate,
    pay rent, pay medical cost for the child?  are they assisting in
    the care of the pregnant women?  Ihave heard other people ask this
    (Bonnie and Laura come to mind), and not anywhere, not once have
    I read here or in the news, seen any commitment on the "movements"
    part.  as my father used to say,   diarrhea of the mouth, contipation
    of thought.....
    If the sole point of the "movement" is to deny the rights of women
    to make the choice, then they need to make commitments as what if
    anything they would be willing to do to give women a choice of what
    to do "after" the forced birthing.
    
    vivian

    I wonder if Lisa Steinberg's natural mother still feels that
    adoption was the answer to her unwanted pregnancy?
    
    Maria
    

RE: Note 183.560 EVER11::KRUPINSKI "Thank you for using VAXnotes"     

        > Each of is is 
	> responsible for the consequences of our respective actions.

	This is exactly the point, Tom.  You be responsible for your
        own actions (for your own body, for your own self), and let
        other people be responsible for their's.

    	Carole

    re: 561
    
    ... the extensive availability of contraception...!!

re .563

	See 183.541

re .561

	See 183.413

				Tom_K

    
    I wish to offend no one...
    
    The following are some thoughts that have been going through my
    mind from the last two days of reading these notes.
    
    A.) I consider myself to be Pro-choice.
    
    B.) Tom and others before you dive into your answers have you
        been reading the *other* note dealing with ACTUAL experiences
        of women who have had to make this decision of incredible 
        impact (I am taking a moment here to say that I feel deeply
        for those of you who have entered your notes - regardless of
        your decisions -.)  I think it might quell your heatedness!
    
    C.) Those of you who have noticed the extreme focus of the Right-
        to-Life movement you are not alone.  I see in the news every
        day people carrying picture of babies and fetuses but not once
        do I see pictures of under-nourished children, abused children
        or child prostitutes.  It seems there's a Right-to-Life move-
        ment but no subsquent Right-to-Quality-of-Life.  
    
    D.) Since the *real* issue is at what point should a pregnancy be
        ended (with some thinking not at all) and the pros and cons
        do provide valid arguments to *either* decision AND since
    
        -now pay special attention Tom (and others)-
        
        THE WOMAN CARRYING THE FETUS *IS* THE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR
        THAT FETUS
    
        (To break it down a little think of *your* house and whether
         you want other people coming in and doing or not doing things
         to your possessions, children, pets etc.)
    
        Then why can't the decision be hers?  Why?  You can vote for
        who you want to.  You can go to church where you want to.  
        You should be able to decide what to do with your body and
        those things which affect it.
    
    E.) How many people need to say that Anti-abortion laws will not
        stop women from getting abortions.  Do anti-prostitution laws
        stop prostitution?  Do anti-drug laws stop people from using
        drugs?  The difference here is that if people are so concerned
        about the supposed life of the unborn why are they not concerned
        about the real life of the adult parent?
    
    That's all until tomorrow's shower.
    
    Luis
    
        
    

    RE: .560
    
 >>   re .558

 >>	.556 addressed two points of .554. I will reiterate: You have
 >>	attempted to invalidate what I say by saying I have no experience
 >>	in the matter. You have no way of knowing that, yet you make the
 >>	claim. You don't know what you are talking about. 
   
    Tom, if you had expressed your feelings or your personal experiences
    on any of these topics, then you could say that I am invalidating
    your experience.  Perhaps you think that expressing your opinion
    on a topic is equal to expressing your experiences related to that
    topic.  It is not the same.
    
    You have not said, "I have been raped and this is how I feel about
    it," or "I have been pregnant and this is how it has impacted me,"
    or "I was adopted and here are some of my experiences as an adoptee."
    
    You have written in "I think" statements..."I think this, and I
    believe that."  So I am not invalidating you feelings or experiences
    because you haven't talked about them, I am, in fact, disagreeing
    with your opinions.
    
    But I think that these very failures to differentiate opinions from
    feelings is the wall of compound ignorance that you can hide behind,
    and blindly state your opinion about everyone else's experience.
    By doing so, you really don't have to think deeply about any of these
    issues and you can view the world through glasses that are tinted
    either black or white.  There are no grey areas.
    
 >>	There is a problem. The problem can be solved by approach A.
 >>	The same problem can be solved by approach B. Approach A is simple,
 >>	and takes up little time. Approach B is complex, and takes up lots
 >>	of time. I'd opt for approach A. If you want to opt for approach B,
 >>	that's OK. But I'd rather use the savings of time of using approach
 >>	A to work on some other problem.
       
    And what I am saying, Tom, is that your approach A (which is that
    women should never have an abortion for any reason at all) is not
    simple, but perhaps thinking like this takes up little of *your*
    time.  Perhaps you are afraid of engaging in deep thinking for fear
    of drowning.
    
    I have pointed out reasons why your simple solution A is not simple
    and you refuse to consider any of the points, such as the impact
    of pregnancy on the woman, the stigma placed on the woman for giving
    birth and relinquishing a child, the stigma that the child carries,
    etc., etc.  These *real* issues are obviously quite unimportant
    to you, Tom, because as I have stated before, I don't believe that
    you have any real experiences as points of reference.  Your overt
    hostility in a prior reply confirmed it for me.
    
    There is no point in attempting to have an intelligent discussion with 
    you because you have retreated behind the method of broken record 
    arguing.  The tactics don't indicate your cleverness, they are an
    example of your ignorance.
    
    

    RE: .561
    
    Thanks for your support, Vivian.  I have tried, but now I'm throwing
    in the towel.
    
    Laura
    

    Look, after 569 replies, you _really_ think you could convince people
    who are anti-choice?
    
    You don't need to _convince_ them, just concentrate on the segment of
    population who is still pro-choice and convince them to be more vocal
    in their support of proc-choice movement.  I believe that segment still
    constitutes majority.  Let's try to keep it that way.
    
    - Vikas 

>>< Note 183.561 by CSC32::SPARROW "Oh, I MYTHed again!" >
>>                    -< put your money where your mouth is >-
>>
>>    fwiw, pryde::ervin tried, she really did.  
>>    I have tried to be patient and give Tom-k the benifit of the doubt, 
>>    maybe even try to understand where he gets his attitude from.  
>>    but I read his replies.......


	I got the feeling that a lot of well meaning  people were trying
to explain to a blind man how to see.  

	Whether one holds a pro (life or choice) position, that is a
personal belief.  However the I'm right and that's that position is
just mind boggling in a theoretical adult.



					KBear

N.B.   I'm relieved to know I am not the only one who tried to be patient
	but gave up.

	I'd like  to make one other point, and then I, too, will chill
	out.  I  want to return again to the concept of the woman as a
	worker  (in  the  Marxist  sense), viz., one who labors in the
	production  process.  No society can long continue without the
	unique  labor  of  its women. (Note that women clearly produce
	more than babies, but I will not address that here.)

	This labor,  besides  being necessary, is not usually easy nor
	particularly  safe.  Of course, I'm sure that it is very often
	most  rewarding.  But  what  if  it  isn't and/or becomes life
	threatening? Should the state be allowed to FORCE the woman to
	continue  her  labor?  And if so, is this not SLAVERY? (In the
	case of rape this becomes even more clearly slavery).

	In a  capitalist  economy, the vast majority of workers do not
	own  the  tools  with which they work. When they arrive on the
	job,  their  behavior is controlled by the employer; they have
	little  or  no  choice. This is called wage slavery. Now women
	have  been  allowed  (recently)  to at least control their own
	tools  when  it  comes  to  reproduction  (their  bodies). The
	anti-abortion  movement  aims  to remove even this control and
	force   women   to   labor  even  when  it  becomes  dangerous
	(physically and/or mentally).  

	I contend that the abolition of slavery is reason enough to be
	for  the  right  of  women to control their bodies without any
	interference whatsoever from the state.

/Joel Finkel

Re: .572

    I must  disagree with you, Marge. The rights must be balanced, but
    I  don't see why the Supreme Court should do the balancing. Before
    Roe  v.  Wade  each  state  could  decide  whether or not to allow
    abortion,  and some states allowed abortion and others didn't. One
    can  believe  that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade and
    return us to that diversity.

    The U.S.  Supreme Court is often called upon to decide what in any
    other  country would be a political question. There are times when
    this  has been good (In the 50's and 60's the court led the nation
    in  attacking segregation.) and times when it's been bad (The Dred
    Scott  decision  may have been partially responsible for the civil
    war.)  As a system of government, it's really a bit odd.

--David

re .566

	Yes, I have read the other note. I believe it is inappropriate
	to comment on the contents of that note. Such was not the purpose 
	of it's existence.

re .567

	I claim no special credentials. But if someone says my opinions
	are worthless, the burden is on them to show why.

	Be careful of falling into the trap of trying to define a
	human being. Bad things can happen.

re .568

	I suppose no one has to think deeply on an issue, but I do
	nevertheless. I would point out that just because a persons 
	thoughts do not result in conclusions congruent to yours 
	does not mean that the thought did not take place.

	You say that you believe that I "have any real experiences as 
	points of reference." You are free to believe that. My personal
	privacy is more important to me than proving that your statement
	is unjustified. I can live with that.

re .573
	The Congress and State legislatures could keep the Supreme Court
	out of the picture by passing a Constitutional Amendment that
	clearly resolves the issue one way or the other. To date, they
	have not chosen to do so.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Remember, you heard it here first 

	Prediction: The Supreme Court will use whatever judicial
	gymnastics it deems necessary to avoid deciding the Missouri
	case based on Roe v. Wade.
						Tom_K

    After reading all of Tom_k 's entries, I have decided to use the
    anger I feel toward his sanctamonious, critical, offensive arguements
    towards womens rights, I have decided to work towards a stronger
    pro-choice party in colorado springs. I have decided that I will
    now work towards gathering support for a pro-choice march in Denver
    to coincide with the one in DC,since I can't afford to go to DC,
    I CAN afford Denver.  I will dedicate my time and effort towards
    womans rights and now commit to becoming polically involved to yank
    my rights, my daughters rights and any other womans rights back
    from people like tom.
    
    vivian

>	Similarly, I am appalled that people advocate the execution
>	of an innocent child because the father was a rapist.

>>>    To be "innocent", one has to have conciousness.  Since conciousness
>>>    is a property that requires a brain, an embryo certainly cannot
>>>    be said to be innocent.
>>>        

>	Then what crime is it guilty of?

>>>    It is not guilty of any crime.  Guilt requires consciousness, just
>>>    as much as innocence does.  An object without conciousness is neither
>>>    guilty nor innocent: it just 'is'.

>       Well, if it isn't guilty, clearly it's innocent. So why execute it?


    Can someone explain this chain of reasoning to me? I thought I
    understood each step, then that last one, out of the blue like that...


>     .....the green X ...
    
>>> X isn't green because ...
    
>     Why is it red?
    
>>> It's not red either.
    
>   Well, if it's not red, clearly it must be green.
    
    
	:-)   { Unless that last step was supposed to be serious }

    re:.575
    
    I'm not trying to define a human being. It's not my burden to
    do so. I make no assumptions about whether a given agglutination
    of cells is a human being or not, other than the basic assumption
    that is isn't one until proven otherwise. It's *your* burden to
    prove that it *is* a human being before you can claim that disposing
    of such an agglutination is "murder", "execution", or whatever
    word you choose to use. One must always prove a positive, not a
    negative.
    
    --- jerry

>    < Note 183.581 by SCARY::M_DAVIS "Smile out loud!" >
>
>    Jerry, where does "benefit of the doubt" enter into this, especially
>    since the risk of error in assuming lack of humanity is what is so
>    horrifying?
>
>    Marge

    Good point.  I have problems with those who believe (or appear to
    believe) that it should be acceptable to terminate a pregnancy at
    any time before birth, for just such a reason.  The "doubt" that
    the developing foetus is more than just an agglutination of cells,
    and might actually be a human being increases as the foetus develops,
    and reaches certainty (for me) some time before birth.  I have no
    doubts at all that, when in the embryonic stage, all that exists
    is a non-concious clump of cells.  As organs (and particularly the
    brain) develop, that doubt increases, and I agree that at some level,
    the developing foetus *should* be given "the benefit of the doubt".
    
    The level at which this point occurs is a very personal matter, and
    until it can be quantified, I believe that the law has to set a
    somewhat arbitrary date as to the latest that an abortion may legally
    be performed, just as the decision to switch off a life-support machine
    is somewhat arbitrary.
    
    As I have said before, I think that a discussion of this point would be
    much more profitable than a pro-choice/pro-life fight (one cannot hope
    to sway zealots with reason).  Real progress (and legislation without
    rational basis is *not* genuine progress, since it could so easily be
    reversed) surely lies in the grey area somewhere between the two
    extremes.

    John

Re: < Note 183.583 by ANT::ZARLENGA "Straight up, now, tell me ..." >

>    	Where have 'those people' written that it is acceptable
>    to terminate a pregancy any time before birth?

        
    I was not referring to anyone in this note-string.  I have heard such
    views expressed elsewhere, though, and I think it is important to
    distance myself from them.
    
    If other "pro-choicers" who have contributed to this string would
    make a similar stand against this extreme too, it might do something
    to weaken the cries of "murder" from the pro-life faction.

    *This* pro-choice person (and I believe others as well) believes that
    abortion should be prohibited after viability, that is, after the
    fetus can be expected to survive on its own, outside the mother,
    without artificial support.  This is my understanding of the Roe
    v Wade decision.  We demand "the right to decide" up until that
    point.  I don't know of anyone who claims the right all the way
    up to the time of birth.  I would be open to the possibility of
    changing that point to the presence of brain waves, however, 
    which I assume is earlier than viability.
    
    Nancy

>>>  Clearly, 6-8 weeks before labor starts, the unborn is
>>>  a complete human being.

  No, that isn't clear at all.  Much of what the discussion over the last, oh,
600 responses concerns what is a "complete human being."  There is a school
of thought that the fetus doesn't become a "full human being" until birth or
sometime after birth.  This belief that, I think, is widely held in the 
Japanese culture as only one example.

  Marge's question of "when should you give the fetus the benefit of the doubt"
can only be answered if you define in some sense what is a "complete human
being."  Her note triggered something for me ... do we as humans give the
benefit of the doubt to other known intelligent animals such as chimpanzees
and other primates, dolphins, and octopi?  No.  Most people ignore the fact
that they are intelligent and rationalize doing research or eating these animals
on the basis that "they aren't human."  Which I assume means they don't have the
same chromosomal makeup.

  If we don't give these animals the benefit of the doubt, then what reason
aside from genetic makeup and "looks like us" is there for giving a human fetus
the benefit of the doubt?  That it has the potential to become a "complete
human being?"  Theoretically, my hair or fingernails have the potential to
become "complete human beings": it only takes some technological advances.  Does
that mean I shouldn't cut my hair or my nails?

    Today's (30  Jan.)  Boston  Globe  had  a  front  page  article on
    abortion  before  Roe  v.  Wade. I haven't had a chance to read it
    completely, but it looked interesting.

--David

    I must put in my two cents.  Probably I'll be repeating someone
    else but there seems a lot of repetition here already.  I am pro
    choice and pro life.  The argument that being pro choice equals
    pro abortion is a cheap shot and sounds like "When did you stop
    beating your wife?"  One issue is choice.  Another issue is life.
    I believe deeply in choice.  I believe in life supporting choices.
    But mostly I believe that someone else cannot, should not make those
    choices for me or anyone else.  
    
    Dondi

Re:  .583

>   Where have 'those people' written that it is acceptable to terminate
>   a pregancy any time before birth?

Well, am I a 'those people'?  See my .231 and .235, for instance.  I'm not
sure whether what I wrote there is truly what .582 had in mind, since I have
no problem with a regulation which would demand that any late abortion be
via C-section, and that the fetus be given a chance to survive on its own
(without heroic measures being taken to preserve it).  But for me, a woman's
right to decide what to do with her own body remains paramount, even when
she's eight months pregnant.

						--Q

   Right now, I find myself attracted to the brain activity standard.
    We already use a flat encephalogram to mark the end of human life,
    I am attracted to the idea of the change from a flat to an active
    encephalogram as a legal medical standard for the beginning of life.
   
    Looking for other input.

    Bonnie

Nice in theory, but (I fear) ultimately impractical.

The reason a standard like that for the beginning of life won't fly is, 
first, because opponents of abortion aren't looking for a scientific starting
point for life (they've already defined their own), and second, determining that 
such a signal is absent before proceeding with an abortion would be very
expensive, probably intrusive, and would violate the pro-choice advocate's
views about a woman's control of her body (as in, keep those electrodes to
yourself). Even if you determined that *on average* electrical activity 
started up at N weeks, individual cases will vary (as does accuracy of counting
weeks, especially if expedient).

The other problem with using brain activity as a sign of life is - what do
we do about our Vice President???

    
    I believe the restrictions on abortion in Roe v Wade are based on
    the "usual" age of viability.  Likewise, I would accept a "usual"
    age of brainwave activity.  I think that's the way to go.
    
    I'm not trying to convince the life-begins-at-conception people
    at this point, but, rather, trying in my own mind to determine
    some point at which the *rest* of us might agree.
    
    Although I am pro-choice, I also believe that the *length of time* 
    that a woman has to make her decision can be limited by the development
    of the fetus.
    
    Does this open another hornet's nest? (No one said this was easy
    -- at least no pro-choicer did!)
    
    Nancy

I'm not sure that I agree with brain-wave detection as a point
after which abortions can not be legally performed. At a pro-choice
demonstration I attended a couple months ago, a sign carried by a
pro-lifer said something about brain waves starting at 7 weeks,
or something like that. Many women probably aren't even sure that they're
pregnant at that point! 

I know very little about biology, but if the sign carried by that woman
is true, then the brain waves at that point must only be
an indication of the brain being able to control certain basic body
functions, such as the heart beating, etc. I just can't go along with
the idea that anything developed enough to have a beating heart, etc. is
developed enough to be considered a human life.

Does anyone out there know more about what type of brain activity 
begins at what period of development?

    Nope.  I know not.  But I do know you can get "brainwaves" by
    attaching electrodes to a bowl of Jell-o.
    
    						Ann B.

    I'll see if I can find the information in some of my text books
    tonite. But there is a difference between measureable electric 
    current activity (which is what I suspect the jello is evidencing)
    and true brain waves.
    
    Bonnie

    re: variations from "usual age"
    
    Obviously, not everything fits in a nice little predictable
    bundle. Yes, the courts could define a given point as the
    border between life and non-life, and we'll undoubtedly find
    samples of each on the opposite side.
    
    But this is the way things *always* work in law. It's no
    different than deciding at what point a person becomes an
    adult and therefore can make their own decisions about their
    lives. Some 14-year-olds have an adult's maturity, but the
    law still considers them children. Some 24-year-olds still
    have the maturity of a child, and yet they are considered
    adults by the law.
    
    It may not be fair to those who happen to be on the wrong side
    of the fence, but who said life was fair?
    
    --- jerry

    
    	Some definitions (for those who bandy terms they do not
    	understand):
    
    		guilty - 1) having guilt, deserving blame
    			 or punishment; culpable
    			 2) having one's guilt proved; 
    			 legally judged an offender
    			 3) showing or conscious of guilt;
    			 as, a 'guilty' look
    			 4) of or involving guilt or a 
    			 sense of guilt; as, a 'guilty'
    			 conscience.
    
    	      innocent - 1) free from sin, evil, or guilt;
    			 specifically, (a) doing or thinking
    			 nothing morally wrong; pure; (b) 
    			 not guilty of a specific crime; 
    			 guiltless; (c) free from evil or
    		  	 harmful effect or cause; that 
    			 cannot harm, injure, or corrupt;
    			 (d) not malignant; benign; as, an
    			 'innocent' tumor.
    			 2) (a) knowing no evil; (b) without
    			 guile or cunning; artless; simple;
    			 (c) foolish; ignorant.
    
    	   While I hate to side with Tom on any portion of this
    	issue, I'd have to say he wins the point that a fetus is
    	'innocent' by all but one of the definitions of the term
    	(i.e. 1d, as a fetus is anything but benign).  For that 
    	matter, a couple of those definitions applied to Tom as
    	well.  Does this mean Tom is 'innocent'?  You be the judge. ;^)
    
    	   Regarding the definition of human being, let's examine
    	a situation and gather some remarks.  
    
    	   Jane is a research scientist working on cloning small
    	mammals.  One day, she decides to try her hand at a human
    	cloning.  She extracts an egg from her ovaries and places
    	it in a petri dish.  She then scrapes some cells from the
    	inside of her mouth, extracts the chromosomes from one of
    	the cells and injects them into the egg.  The egg, a 
    	genetic mirror of Jane, begins dividing.  She implants
    	this in her uterus and begins the gestation period.
    
    	   First question:  Is the fetus a completely new person
    			    or is it a malignancy (as it has the
    			    same genetic code as the host)?
    
    	   As a competent researcher, Jane understands the need 
    	for on-going data while the experiment commences.  Her
    	body begins to undergo the changes induced by pregnancy.
    	She records the evidence of these changes, including use
    	of X-rays and tracer dyes.  During the course of this
    	experiment the genetic code of the fetus is altered by
    	the radiation and chemicals.  It is no longer the genetic
    	mirror of its host.
    
    	Second question:  Since the genetic code is no longer the
    			  same as the host, is it now logical to
    			  assume that the fetus is now a different
    			  person than it was before the mutation?
    
    	   Jane continues to monitor the pregnancy and detects the
    	mutation.  Her examination of the chromosomes indicates 
    	that the mutation is of the non-viable variety, and will
    	not survive the gestation process.  Moreover, she is 
    	concerned that the 'fetus' has now indeed become a cancerous
    	grouwth that potentially threatens her life.  She then induces
    	premature labor as a means of aborting the unnatural pregnancy.
    
    	Third question: At what point did the 'fetus' actually cease
    			to be a fetus, at mutation or during the
    			abortion?
    
    	Fourth question: At what point can a fetus that constitutes
    			 a verifiable risk to its mother be considered
    			 a 'malignancy' and be removed as such?
    
    	- Greg

    Over the weekend I read an interesting editorial in regards to abortion
    and "when" the fetus is "human".
    
    The writer was obviously anti-abortion as he stated that research
    shows that the moment the cells begin division upon fertilization,
    all of the required chromosones, etc are present. The mother is
    only the host to fetus and it has become a separate entity.
    
    He wrote that the "control of body" was not so much an issue as
    a bargaining chip in the multi-million dollar abortion business.
    He asked who in their right mind would want to give up a business
    of 600 abortions per week (Manchester, NH) at the rate of $500 per
    procedure?? $150,000 week revenue is a strong argument for not 
    overturning Roe vs. Wade in his eyes.
    
    The article was in the Manchester Union Leader either Friday or
    Saturday. (2/3 or 2/4)
    
    
    Also there was a talk show on the subject asking the following:
    If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, what would be the criminal penalty
    for the women who has an abortion and what would it be for those
    in the medical profession who continued to perform them??
    
    This is a difficult question. Do you sentence a person to life for
    murder? Do the Doctor and Nurse become accessories to murder. The
    host stated that IF abortion were to become illegal, it would then
    have to be likened to 1st degree murder (malice/aforethought)and those
    involved who have to be accused of accomplishment to the crime.
    Host was obviously Pro-choice.
    
    What I see here is a non-meeting of the minds. The strident pro-choice
    people will have nothing but what they want, the same is true for
    the anti-abortion side. If a compromise is not reached somehow,
    I feel that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned and abortion will become
    illegal with exception of the life of the mother being threatened
    and possibly one or two other extreme circumstances. The decision
    will take everything back to the 1930-1960 era and will remain there
    until a fetus can be removed from a woman and nurtured outside her
    body. If the Supreme Court does review the decision it is expected
    to be overturned 5-4 and all of the protesting etc. won't matter.
    
    Ken

This is a real rat-hole, but as one of the principle architects of this
rodenteous detour....
    
>      	      innocent - 1) free from sin, evil, or guilt;
>    			 specifically, (a) doing or thinking
>    			 nothing morally wrong; pure; (b) 
>    			 not guilty of a specific crime; 
>    			 guiltless; (c) free from evil or
>    		  	 harmful effect or cause; that 
>    			 cannot harm, injure, or corrupt;
>    			 (d) not malignant; benign; as, an
>    			 'innocent' tumor.
>    			 2) (a) knowing no evil; (b) without
>    			 guile or cunning; artless; simple;
>    			 (c) foolish; ignorant.

    The trouble with these "definitions" is that they do not really define
    what innocence is, but rather what it is not.  They are all just as
    applicable to inanimate objects as they are to people.  If Tom really
    meant "innocent in the sense that an oxygen molecule or a brick is
    innocent", then I would have to concede the point.  However, I got the
    impression that more was intended by the phrase than that. 

RE: < Note 183.602 by ULTRA::WRAY "John Wray" >
>    The trouble with these "definitions" is that they do not really define
>    what innocence is, but rather what it is not.  They are all just as
>    applicable to inanimate objects as they are to people.  

   Putting the philosophical hair-splitting aside for a moment (enjoyable
   as it might be), it does not take a Spinoza or Hegel to understand the	
   REAL EFFECTS of making abortion illegal.  WOMEN WILL DIE.  

   Now, the anti-choice advocates will claim that the unborn 'child' is
   more important than the pregnant woman.  Why?  Because it has no other
   advocate; because it must live long enough to be baptized; because
   women should not be allowed to control their own bodies; because sex
   is bad; because it's a human being and killing humans is bad;...ad nauseum.

   The simple fact is that they feel that the fetus is MORE IMPORTANT
   than the woman.  So much more important, in fact, that they will
   deny the woman her rights and enslave her in forced labor.  It's 
   a simple matter, really.  Whose side are you on?  I'm on the side
   of the women who will die if abortions are outlawed.

/Joel Finkel

p.s. An open question: How many anti-abortionists are also against
     contraception?

p.p.s. Another one:  How much do you want to bet that all the people
    who celebrated the execution of Ted Bundy are 'pro-life'?  (This
    could easily lead into another rat-hole, so careful!)

    in re anti-abortionists and contraception.
    
    In the Boston Globe this weekend, there was an ad, paid for by
    Planned Parenthood, that raised this very  question. There  are
    apparently many anti-abortionists who are also anti-contraception.
    Does anyone have any hard informaton on this?
    
    Bonnie

    The IUD works as means of abortion in that it prevents a fertilized
    egg from being implanted in the uterus.
    
    I think there's at least the possibility that the pill also permits
    the egg to be fertilized ... but I'm not sure and have forgotten
    the details.  (Help?)
    
    For those who insist that a fertilized egg is a baby, any method
    of contraception that permits egg fertilization and then causes
    that egg to be expelled would be unacceptable.
    
    Nancy
    

re: Joel

 From what I gather from the pro-life forces, they do not seem to be saying
that the unborn child has more worth, value or rights than the mother. Rather,
they are saying that the unborn child has EQUAL worth, value and rights.
(If I understand correctly)

 To be honest, I feel that the wholesale use of abortion as an alternative
to contraception is wrong. I also feel that there are times when abortion
seems to make the most sense in terms of health, etc. Those times when abortion
makes the most sense (of all the options) do not include simple convenience
for the mother in my opinion.

 Here are some of the reasons I would consider as justified for an abortion.
If the mother is a victim of rape or incestual rape. If the mother's health
is in danger. If the child has a congenital disease that will make it difficult
or impossible for it to lead a normal life. If the child has been diagnosed
as having a mentally debilitating disease.

 My feelings regarding abortion are less liberal than some, and less conserv-
ative than some. I used to think that I was against abortion. Having followed
the discussion here and participated in SOAPBOX, I realized that my position
was not so much against abortion, but against conscienceless abuse of
abortion. In order to come to a position that could be reconciled within
myself, I concluded that it does not make sense to outlaw abortion in every
case, because it ends up punishing people for things they have little or no
control over. Sense it does not appear feasible to outlaw abortion only in
cases where it is being applied essentially as post-coital birth control,
I concluded that the current system, while imperfect, remains to be the
best trade-off currently available. I cannot see punishing the many for the
transgressions of the few.

 Punishing the many for the transgressions of the few seems to be a popular
means of correcting society's problems, these days. Instead of punishing the
actual criminals, we tend to erode the rights of the common citizens. Examples
of this trend are 1) roadblocks to detect drunk drivers, where the average
driver is assumed to be guilty of a crime by virtue of his appearance behind
the wheel at certain times of day; 2) gun control- whereby lawful gun owners
are assumed to be crazed madmen, unable to handle a firearm without killing
others. Instead of concetrating on the actual criminals, we instead diminish
the freedoms of the many- and blindly hope the problem goes away.

 All in all, I support abortion in some cases, and as such I cannot agree
with legislation that would totally outlaw it. In the cases where I disagree
with the use of abortion as the right alternative for someone else, I am
not responsible for their actions. They will have to live with themselves.
They will have to face (in my estimation) their God(dess), and face up to
what they've done at the end of this life. In the end, all will receive what
they've earned.

 The Doctah

RE: < Note 183.604 by SCARY::M_DAVIS "Smile out loud!" >
>
>    re .603:
>    Joel, please feel free to represent your own opinions here, but please
>    do not try to represent the opinions of those who disagree with you.
>    You're doing an abysmal job at it.
>    

Marge,

   Well stated.  I'm sorry.  Perhaps I should have said that the anti-
   abortionists with whom I have spoken and whom I have seen interviewed 
   have expressed a variety of reasons for their political stand.  These 
   include strictly religious ("baptizing the 'child' is the uppermost 
   consideration", "sex is for procreation only, no exceptions"), ethical 
   ("it's bad to kill babies and the fetus is a baby"), sexist ("a woman's 
   only place is as a homemaker and mother"), strictly misogynous ("women 
   should not have a choice"), highly neurotic, at best ("sex is bad"), and 
   constitutional ("the fetus should have representation as protected under 
   the law").

   Mind you, I am NOT speaking of the woman who faces the awesome decision
   and decides to carry to term (the gravity of this decision is something 
   that I can NEVER fully appreciate).  I'm speaking, rather, of those, whom 
   I have personally met and seen interviewed, who would deny that woman the 
   right to decide.

   In my experience, few of these people have ever considered the life of
   the pregnant woman to be AS IMPORTANT as the life of the fetus.  And
   I am of the opinion that the woman is MORE important.  And that's whose
   side I support.  The right of the woman to be free from forced labor is
   essential, as is the necessity of elevating her importance in society. 
   
/Joel

ps., I swear to you that I have personally met anti-abortionists who have
     expressed each of the ideas enumerated above.  Most, but not all, are
     men.  The anti-abortionist women that I know almost aways base their
     decisions on the religious grounds (baptizing and sex for procreation
     only...no contraception), although one has bought into the sexist 
     attitudes that women are to be homemakers and mothers only (barefoot
     and pregnant).

pps. Also, a couple of these women are friends of mine, and they are truly
     among the more loving and giving people I know.  Their love is so
     overwhelming that they simply cannot conceive (pardon the pun) of
     abortion in their own lives, and cannot conceive of abortion
     in any woman's life. They have never had the experience of an
     unwanted pregnancy and can appreciate it about as well as I can;
     ie., hardly at all.  I respect them; they elevate the importance of
     their fetuses in their own minds.  How can one argue against this; it's
     profound and wonderful and basic to producing a healthy baby.  

     But when they deny the right of a woman to elevate her own importance
     over that of the fetus...well, that's where we part company.  This
     just gets back to the pro-abortion / pro-choice discussion.  One can
     be against abortion on a personal level (for one's self), yet be 
     pro-choice on a political level.  And I know many woman for whom this
     is the case.

    re: .606  (Nancy)
    
    	   Some time back (around reply .401, I think), I posted a
    	fairly long not one the subject.
    
    	   IUDs are, as you indicated, contragestives.  The pill is,
    	for the most part, contraceptive in nature, in that it's primary
    	function is to prevent fertilization.  However, because the pill
    	causes hormonal changes in the female body which result in the
    	uterus being too 'tense' to accept the fertilized egg, there is
    	a possibility that its effects might be contragestive in nature
    	at times.
    
    	- Greg

    It's been a while since my doctor explained to me how the pill
    worked...but the reason for its high effectiveness is because it
    works in three ways.
    
    First   - it prevents ovulation - thus no egg to fertilize.
    Second  - if ovulation occurs - the uterus lining is usually not
              thick enough to support the egg.
    Thirdly - it thickens the mucus at the cervix which prevents/hinders
              sperm from reaching an ovulated egg (if there is one).    
           
    
    
    I'll have to agree with Joel - most anti-abortionists that I have
    met are also against contraceptives and sex education.
    
    Suzanne
    

    Re .609
    
    You are incorrect about the Catholic Church allowing use of the
    Pill.  The only form of birth control that the Church allows is
    rhythm, which doesn't seem to be very effective, unless you are
    trying to conceive.  The Church doesn't believe in any form of
    artificial contraception, so that includes the Pill, IUD's, condoms,
    etc.  

re .611


>	most anti-abortionists that I have met are also against
>	contraceptives and sex education.

	In my experience they are against *state* *sponsored*
	sex education. 

				Tom_K

    Well, Tom, since a lot of these people loudly and indignantly
    deny that they would teach their children *anything* about evil,
    dirty sex at home, I think that the more generalized claim is
    correct.
    
    						Ann B.

< Note 183.615 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet." >
                   -< What?  No church-sponsored education? >-


    Ann, 

    The UU's have put together a kit called AYS....About Your
    Sexuality....which they continually update for use in
    the Sunny Schools or Youth Groups for education purposes.
    This has been going on for well over 10 years now.  Any
    church can buy the kit and get the training by contacting
    the UU Office of Curriculum Development at 25 Beacon Street
    in Boston, MA.  

    My kids took the course and I took the teacher training as
    a parent/church school superintendant to make myself aware
    of what was being taught.  I found it to be quite comprehensive
    and the weekend training ended up being fun!  

    justme....jacqui

 Re .612

 The Catholic Church also allows other natural methods like basal body temp,
mucus method, and coitus-interruptus. 

The  Doctah

ps- It seems that there was one other...

    Re .617
    
    You are correct.  But basal body temp and mucus methods are just
    refinements of rhythm.  

    
    Re .617
    
    Yeah! Because they _don't work_!
    
    Roberta

>    Yeah! Because they _don't work_!

     Yeah! And I have a third child to prove it!!!  (Actually the
     method isn't so much to blame as the human practitioners - 
     but, hey, that's what I am (human) - so that certainly has
     to be taken into account if a method "works" or not!)

     Debess

    
    Yeah! And I _am_ a third child to prove it!
    
    
    Roberta
    

    Basal body temp and cervical mucous are reasonably accurate
    methods of telling when a woman is about to ovulate. They
    have been quite successful in helping couples know when
    the optimum time is to conceive children. However, methods
    of contraception that are that complicated need a high degree
    of dedication in those that use them. For this reason they
    are not highly successful in the general population.
    
    Tom_K by *state supported* do you mean that you approve or
    disapprove of teaching the biology of conception and birth
    to grade school and high school children? That phrase is
    often used with that meaning.
    
    Bonnie

    I've noticed an interesting new trend ("trend" - mentioned by two
    people.) in this note.  This is the implied claim that no one
    should be making a profit from abortion.

    I'd like to look at this from other angles, in order to decide on
    its validity.

    Lessee.  An abortion costs three to five hundred dollars, and it's
    a surgical procedure, but it requires no anesthetic, and even that
    theoretical construct, the massively fertile twit, can not be
    expected to undergo more than six a year, for a (purely monetary,
    mind you) cost of two to three thousand dollars.

    A single pregnancy, carried to term, costs three to five thousand
    dollars.

    Whoa!  If we're going to accept a dollar-based morality, shouldn't
    we then claim that abortion is more moral than childbearing?

    What?  Why, yes, there *are* other factors, and, yes, I'll look
    at them.  First, while abortion is optional for all women, childbirth
    is mandatory -- not for every woman, but definitely for the species.
    Second, while abortion is a genuine surgical procedure, childbirth
    is not.  For millenia, this has been something women have done at
    home, sometimes even alone.  Third, while alternatives to abortion
    are quite legal and heartily encouraged, alternatives to childbirth-
    in-a-hospital-with-a-doctor-et-alia are widely DIScouraged and are
    frequently illegal.

    Thus, we have a compulsory, artificially-constrained, high-priced work
    being weighed against an optional, low-priced one.  I could claim
    that abortion still wins out in the money-morality race here.

    Instead, I'll point out that [it seems to me] abortion is obeying
    the dictates of market forces, and that hospital-childbirth is not.
    Why not?  The widespread use of insurance produces some insulation,
    but insurance companies feel market forces too.  I believe that the
    legal restraints are the real problem.  Whence cameth they?  (Sorry.)

    Until the nineteenth century, birthing was done under the supervision
    of midwives.  Until the nineteenth century, abortion was legal.  In
    the nineteenth century, doctors took over the care of women throughout
    pregnancy.  Although ether was discovered and used an an anesthetic
    in the first half of the nineteenth century, its use during childbirth
    was condemned until the second half.  Also in the second half of that
    century, midwifery was made illegal.  (So now we have men engaging
    in and women forbidden to engage in obstetrics.  (From the Latin,
    obstetrix, she who stands before.))

    What did proliferate in the nineteenth century was puerperal or
    childbed fever.  It was bestowed on women by their male physicians,
    as the men assisted them in childbirth.  It was so prevalent and
    lethal that many women turned, for the first time, to abortionists
    in order to save their own lives.  According to Susan Brownmiller
    (I think it was she), this behavior so adversely affected doctor's
    incomes that they banded together and persuaded the legislatures of
    each state to make abortion illegal, so that they could return to
    fattening their own purses and women's bellies.
    
    Somehow I do not see it as coincidental that in 1869 the Catholic
    Church made a doctrinal change.  Prior to then, the Church had held
    that the soul arrived in the fifth month of pregnancy, when
    "quickening" occurred.  In 1869 Pope Pius X announced that the soul
    was received at conception.

    So, with this little history lesson behind us, we can look again
    at the modern system.  Are the people who work in abortion clinics,
    enduring anonymous phone calls, bomb threats, and even bombs, in
    order to collect one tenth of the money from one fifth of the women
    that doctors in hospitals see, more or less moral than obstetricians?

    Or is this the wrong question to ask?

    						Ann B.

    
    
    The following is something I would like fellow noters to address
    today.  It comes from a newsclip from CNN before I came to work
    Tuesday.
    
    Scene:  New York courtroom
    
    A husband must make the decision whether his wife's 3 month old
    fetus should be aborted.
    
    His wife lies in coma - the result of a car accident.
    
    Doctors have already stated the fetus is causing complications
    in the mother's fragile condition.
    
    Outside (*incredible* but unfortunately very real) Right-to-Lifers
    march.
    
    Luis

	Just a nit but as of two years ago a first tri-mester
	abortion in Concord, NH cost $200.  Last month I had
	a sliver of glass in my foot and it cost $75 to have
	it removed - (all that was done was - looking, probing,
	a small incision and an extraction).

	Who is making money on what????

	_peggy

    Actually, what makes the whole thing silly is that if the mother
    doesn't survive, neither will the fetus. So, basically, the
    options/effects break down to:
    
    (1) Abortion	Fetus dies; mother possibly lives
    
    (2) No abortion	Fetus dies; mother probably dies
    
    Certainly, neither one is a win-win situation, but clearly Option
    #2 incurs the greater loss.
    
    --- jerry

    re. 627
    
    I was going to mention something about this this morning - but you said
    it better than I could.  I just cannot believe these people
    (right-to-lifers) making a difficult decision for this man even more
    difficult.  I heard this morning that he would become her guardian
    legally, but the right-to-lifers took some legal action to stop this.
    So the whole thing is on hold right now!  WHO GIVES THEM THE RIGHT -
    WHAT ABOUT THE WOMEN"S RIGHT TO LIFE!!!! 

    I am so OUTRAGED.  For God's sake, this is the woman's life.   If
    in fact they are right-to-lifers, then what is so difficult about
    this decision?  
    
    -Dotti Who_is_flaming.

    My opinion:
    
    If there is any good that can come out of such a tragic string of
    events, it will be to focus attention on how ridiculous, short sighted,
    cruel, and just plain WRONG the "right-to-lifers" (quotes are
    deliberate) really are.
    

    Bruce 

    I keep hearing Right-to-Life people on talk shows, etc., claim
    that abortion is legal throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.
    (They never qualify that statement, so the implication is that it
    is availabile "on demand" throughout!)  
    
    I thought that Roe v. Wade made it available as a woman's choice during
    early pregnancy, and said states could regulate it after so many weeks,
    but I thought it wasn't really legal in the last trimester except to
    save Mom's life.  Can someone clear up my confusion, please?
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

  Its a "states rights" issue; the text of the decision gives the states the
power to allow or disallow abortion during the last trimester.  Some states
are probably more "liberal" than others.

    re.639
    
    Great article! [even if it was _still_ a bit sanitised]
    
    It brought back to me pretty vividly the late Tuesday night in
    October of 1972 when my own position on abortion solidified as I
    sat with a 20-year-old presidential scholar in Chemical Engineering
    as she slowly bled internally from a coat-hanger abortion.  

    We weren't exactly friends but we were in several classes together
    where we were the only two women and she had asked for me to sit
    with her.  I hadn't even known she was pregnant.  She had gotten
    'a name' and gone alone to a woman whose primitive and unsanitary
    methods ultimately killed her.  She told me all about it: the fear,
    the pain, and the desparation & powerlessness, and the 'procedure.'
    
    Several years later I was with my sister when she had a safe, legal
    abortion that quite literally saved _her_ life.  The fear and the
    pain were there, but not the powerlessness and desparation.
    
    I am militantly anti-abortion, pro-choice, pro-Life!!  A woman should
    NOT die for making the choice to abort!
    
      Ann

I agree with the article; I think the pro choice movement has become much too
civilized.

Over the years pro choicers have allowed the anti choice folks to co-opt
most of the politically effective words (e.g., pro life) and pictures (cute
babies), while the pro choice people rested on our Roe v. Wade laurels.  We
got abortion legalized with the help of pictures and stories of coat hangers;
I, for one, wouldn't be ashamed to keep abortion legal with their help.  It's
thoroughly gruesome.  But this fight isn't exactly pretty, either, and I
think that we are on our way to losing it if we don't fight back as hard as
the anti choice people.

And I hope women will lead the way.

					--Q, still shuddering from the
					thought of coat hangers

    
    I think it would be very valuable to capitalize on the article's
    idea of pro-choice vs. no-choice!  The "no-choice" label clearly
    articulates my fears.  I have been hearing too many no-choicers
    lately claiming that abortion is "legal" in all states for the full
    nine months of pregnancy -- and implying that it is abortion-on-demand,
    that is, abortion chosen lightly, or on a whim, rather than abortion
    to save the life of the mother!  
    
    Enough already!  This fear -- that in a crisis pregnancy my life might
    be sacrificed in order to baptize a fetus or a baby -- contributed to
    my own anti-catholic fears in the 60's -- I can't imagine what it would
    be like to return to that kind of fear!
    
    So, if I can *remember* to do so, *my* terms will be "pro-choice"
    and "no-choice."
    
    Nancy

	Yes, having the so-called "Pro-Choice" movement change
	to "No-choice" would be a more accurate reflection of 
	their policy wrt the unborn (they don't get any).

					Tom_K

Re: .643

Excuse me, Tom... perhaps I'm missing something, but just what "choice"
does the "unborn" have now that you imply would be removed?

Sometimes (often) I wish people would stop playing word games about this
issue.  But I understand only too well why they do not.

					Steve

================================================================================
Note 325.160         Pro-Choice Rally in D.C., April 9 1989           160 of 161
USEM::DONOVAN                                        89 lines  16-MAR-1989 09:57
                                -< Please Read >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Copied without permission from Sunday's Globe. 
    Choice Words by Anita Diamant.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    I don't remember ever having seen a coat-hanger open before. But
    in a full page advertizement run by the National Abortion Rights
    Action League a few weeks ago, the wire hanger was twisted apart
    at the neck. 
           Which end, I wondered, did they use? Which end do they still
    use in Mexici City and Nairobi and maybe soon in Providence and
    Southie?
    	   It is a horrible thought and I try to erase it from my mind.
    But after a few days I dug out the page to see it again: the symbol
    of the prochoice movement, fully armed.
    	Dor more than 20 years, my intire adult life, I have not known
    that a coat hanger is not something that just hangs in the closet.
    It has always signified something menacing, and it has always been
    closely linked with the ominous "back-alley butcher". The gaping
    hanger set me thinking: If you went to the back-alley butcher, he
    would have implements of some kind.So you wouldn's have to rummage
    through the closet. 
    	Would you hold the hanger up to a flame, the way you sterilize
    a needle to remove a splinter? Would you do it in your own familiar
    bathroom? I would have to do it at night. I have never been able
    to imagine dying in the morning.
    	Am I shocking you? I know it's Sunday morning and I apologise.
    but I am not sorry.
    	Most of you agree with me that reproductive decisions are best
    left up to the people who must live with their consequences. A ma-
    jorityof you know that restricting access to abortion or criminalizing
    it will not stop abortion:women with the means will buy safe ones.
    Women without will suffer.
    	But as the Supreme Court moves further away from that indesputable
    fact it becomes increasingly important to express the moral authority
    of the pro-choice position as forcefully as possible.
    	Abortion exposes the power of language and symbol like few other
    issues. And for the past decade, the antiabortion position has been
    winniing political points, in part because it has not shied away
    from using deeply upsetting images.
    	If you drive past a demonstration in front of an abortion clinic,
    you don't have to read the opposing placards to know where the lines
    are drawn. There are babies on the signs of the antiabortion troops
    all smiling and pink. (Never black or brown) What kind of life would
    deny life to one of these potential Einsteins? (never an anancephalic
    baby or a baby genitically doomed before it can sit
    	Even the labels favor those who equate abortion with execution.
    "Prolife" grammatically suggests as its opposite "antilife" or
    "prodeath". Antiabortion implies that there is a proabortion position,
    even though no one actually advocates abortion. 
    	There bumper stickers say "Abortion is Murder", Pray to end
    Abortion", and "Choose Life". By contrast the slogan "I'm Prochoice
    and I Vote" seems almost disinterested.
    	The term "prochoice" is civil and rational.But it does not sound
    the alarm against very uncivilized consequenses of its opposite,
    which is, properly, "no choice". Last year, the World Health
    Organization reported that there were 500,000 MATERNAL DEATHS WORLDWIDE
    HALF WERE ATTRIBUTED TO SEPTIC ABORTIONS, which occurred mostly
    in nations where abortion is illegal and birth control is difficult
    to obtain.
    	Advocaating the right to choose has not always been so passive
    or polite. Abortion has been legal in this country since 1973. after
    a passionate campaign that was not afraid to describe the personal
    and public health costs of illegal abortions. Twenty years ago,
    women stood up at abortion speak-outs and told their stories. The
    luckier onse talked of going abroad, alone and afraid, to undergo
    a procedure that they barely understood; some described botched
    jobs that left them sterile; forever bereaved doctors told of times
    they had been unable to stanch the bolood of the girld who picked
    up coat hangers.
    	"I had an abortion," said mothers, grandmothers, Catholics ,
    Protestants and Jews, teachers, homemekers, actresses, and secretaries.
    Many gave their names even though they were admitting to an illegal
    act. Even though it is not easy to talk about the always ambiguious
    act of abortion- a choice made of necessity, carried out with courage
    and greif. The people who talked about the "choice" of giving it
    up for adoption would think that women experience pregnancy and
    child birth as thoughtlessly as cats. 
          These are scary times. Last year a safe, French made
    abortificient drug was breifly withdrawn from the world market in
    response to relentless pressure from American Antiabortion Activists.
    George Bush's FIRST ACT AS PRESIDENT was to declare solidarity with
    the demonstrators carrying fetus placards. RONALD REGAN'S COURT
    WILL RULE ON ROE vs WADE.
    	The headline in the coathanger ad warned,"To many of our daughters,
    this looks like a coat hanger." The prochoice movement is taking
    off the gloves to remind us of the scars, to get us to work.
    
    In Unity There is Strength,
    Kate

================================================================================
Note 325.161         Pro-Choice Rally in D.C., April 9 1989           161 of 162
PNEUMA::SULLIVAN "Singing for our lives"              6 lines  16-MAR-1989 10:22
                                  -< Thanks >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    
    Thanks for taking the time to type in that very moving article,
    Kate.
    
    Justine

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    Mary, I've hidden your response because it's directed to Tom's,
    which should not have been visible.  Tom chose to make it visible
    again after we hid it, so this time it's been deleted instead.
                         
    						=maggie

    I guess I don't understand why the preceding notes were hidden/deleted.
    Though I have very strong pro-choice feelings, I thought Tom's note was
    very articulate and expressed quite well the position of the pro-life
    movement.  And Mary's response was ... well, I thought it was
    thoughtful, well-written, and generally an excellent reply.  Despite my
    disagreement with the content of Tom's note, I saw absolutely nothing
    offensive about either one.  Would the moderators explain the reasoning
    behind not letting everyone see them?  Thanks! 
    
    							Pat

    [From the 17-March issue of the Nashua (NH) Telegraph, p1]
    
    Concord - An anti-abortion protest staged by about 150 people at the
    Statehouse apparently did little to sway a House vote on an unenforced
    1848 statute on abortion.
    
    The House voted to repeal the law Thursday by a 188-157 vote after a
    25-minute debate.  The measure must be passed by the Senate and then
    signed by Gov. Judd Gregg to become law.  [or to "unbecome law"?]
    
    The protest was aimed at getting legislators to stop the repeal of the
    law that carried with it criminal penalties for people who performed
    abortions.
    
    The rally, held on the steps of the building, was peaceful.  Many in
    attendance carried placards that called abortion murder and asked
    legislators to vote no on the bill.
    
    Russell Pond, director of the New Hampshire Pro-Life Council, led the
    group in prayers and songs and asked the people to get more involved in
    the anti-abortion movement.
    
    Pond told the group to keep track of legislators' votes on the bill and
    vowed to hold accountable all those who voted for it.
    
    "We want House Bill 377 to go down the tubes, fast," he said.  "We will
    know if they voted right or not...and we'll remember."
    
    Pond said the protesters came out "because we believe in life...and
    we want to send a message to those inside (the Statehouse)."
    
    Pond  also promised to close down Concord's Feminist Health Center, a
    clinic where abortions are performed.
    
    "We want those at the 'House of Herod' to know their days are
    numbered," he said.  "If you don't shut yourselves down, we will shut
    you down."
    
    Pond and others urged those at the rally to lobby their representatives
    for a roll call vote on the bill.
    
    Rev. Douglas Tunney of Goffstown said he had turned two legislators
    against the bill by calling them and explaining his position.
    
    "The representatives are not our enemies," he said.  "We need to talk
    to them, gently, and let them know why abortion is wrong."
    
    Manchester mayor Emile Beaulieau also spoke against the bill.
    
    "We're on the right side," he said.  "We have to make them know that if
    they vote for abortion, they are killing our future."
    
    Dean Dexter, a spokesman for Sen. Gordon Humphrey, R-N.H., said tough
    abortion laws would promote better welfare for women.  "We don't
    want anybody to go to a back alley to get an abortion," he said.  "We
    want to help women."
    
    Dexter then read them a letter Humphrey sent to the protesters earlier
    in the morning.  Humphrey congratulated the protesters for their
    conviction and urged them to "never give up the fight."  Humphrey said
    he believes the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion will
    be overturned soon.
    
    "The Supreme Court makes mistakes," he said, noting that the high court
    once called slavery constitutional before reversing itself. 
    
    "Soon the error will be corrected," he said.

    Re: .660
    
    Of course, the house voting to repeal the law does not mean that
    the fight is won.  I will be writing my state senator and Gov.
    Gregg in support of the law's repeal.  It bothers me that only
    one side got the press in this article. 
    
    			Steve

Re:< Note 183.655 by SCARY::M_DAVIS "nested disclaimers" >

>        He didn't misread it.  Tom believes, as do I, that the fetus deserves
>    the same consideration as any other living human, no matter the stage
>    of development.

    I sort of got that impression, although Tom has been very reluctant to
    say precisely what he does believe that life begins.  Until Tom
    is willing to discuss the issue (rather than preach about it) I
    think the best that we can do is to ignore his "contributions" to
    this note-string.
    
    I can empathize with your viewpoint, although I can't say that I
    fully understand it.  I'm sorry if I'm not being clear - my own
    feelings aren't that clear in this area.  The basic problem I have
    is that I can't see any particular place in the development of an
    adult human when I can definitely say "That's when they became a
    person".  I can see arguments for any of the following:
    
    i)	Ovulation
    ii)	Ejaculation
    iii)Fertilization
    iv)	Cell division
    v)	Development of the brain
    vi) Birth
    vii)Capability of abstract thought; concept of "self"
    
    Now, (i), (ii), and (iii) seem to be completely under the control
    (for want of a better word) of the parents, and therefore I believe
    that they can't be considered to be indicative of independent life.
    They all seem to have the same standing - that they are convenient
    landmarks in the production of a new human, but are not particularly
    relevant to the start of life.

    Cell division is an interesting possibility, especially if we were to
    define "life" as that property belonging to dividing cells with distinct
    genetic structure.  This would distinguish the "life" of a developing
    child from that of the mother.  However, it would also give the same
    status to a cancerous growth (in either parent), and I don't think that
    this is particularly desirable - I wouldn't like to be prevented from
    having a cancer removed on the grounds that to do so would be to kill
    it. 

    (v), the development of the brain is my own favorite candidate for the
    start of life (or at least human life - we seem to have made a tacit
    assumption that human life is all that counts, here).  The problem with
    this one is that it is spread over a long period.  It starts in about
    the 6th week of pregnancy, and continues into adolescence.  However,
    I'd have thought (or at least hoped) that a reasonable concensus could
    be reached, based on this facet of development. 

    (vi).  Birth seems to me to be something that just "happens", both to
    the mother, and to the child.  It is a purely physical change, and
    neither mother not child are altered in a fundamental way by it.
    Therefore I don't believe that there can be any justification in
    treating this a the start of life. 
    
    (vii). Concept of self, and abstract though capability.  Well, this
    is a tough one.  After all, this is fundamentally what distinguishes
    us from the rest of the animal kingdom.  There is good evidence
    that such an ability doesn't appear for many months after birth.
    However, I would be very reluctant to conclude that therefore a
    new-born baby was not alive (in a human sense).

    I would very much like to hear the views of one such as you (Marge) on
    these landmarks, to try to understand why you feel (I think) that
    fertilization is so much more important than the other candidates for
    the start of life.  It could be that such a choice is simply "playing
    safe".  Alternatively, there could be compelling arguments in favor
    of this landmarks.  It'd be refreshing if we could have some true
    discussion of the issue.

    It would be interesting to here Tom's views, too, but I have pretty
    well given up hope that we shall ever hear any real discussion from
    that source - after all, when you are privy to "the truth", why
    bother discussing things with mere mortals?

Re: < Note 183.663 by SCARY::M_DAVIS "nested disclaimers" >

    I guess this shows how divisive labels can be.  I tend to describe
    myself as pro-choice, whereas I would have considered you to be
    pro-life.  Having read your note, it appears that we hold very similar
    views on this issue.  Both the pro-life and the pro-choice umbrellas
    cover a wide variation in individual viewpoints, and to lump either of
    them together (as is so often done) only serves the extremist elements
    of each camp. 
    
    John

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    A formal complaint has been lodged with us about Tom's choice of
    labels.  In accordance with our policy, Tom's note and all those
    referring to it have been hidden.
    
    						=maggie

    you missed .664
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    As one who just discovered this note, I'd like to know the latest
    facts. Do the political analysts really expect Roe vs Wade to be
    overturned? Or do they just expect a modification on second trimester
    abortions? Or do they expect things to stay as they are? 
    
    Did anyone go to the Worcester Public Library to hear the ACLU rep?
    I missed it. 
    
    Marge- As I said in note #325 regarding the march, I thoroughly
           respect your opinion. You seem like an articulate and thoughtful
           person. 
    
    I suppose all of you know which "side I'm on so I'm not here to
    rant and rave. Maggie, not to worry. It must be a heck of a job
    having to walk around with that police hat on all day. 8^)
    
    Kate 

    	Questions I heard raised on the radio concerning abortion:
    
    1. If abortion is outlawed, what is a just penalty for the women
       who decide to get one illegally?? The most often given sentence
       that I heard was 10 years.
    
    2. If abortion is outlawed, what is a just penalty for a doctor
       who performs abortions illegally? Loss of license and 10 years
       was the sentence I most often heard.
    
       The moderator brought up valid agruments on both sides of the
    question. He stated that the pro-life side was not considering the
    "right of a woman to control her body" and that the pro-abortion
    side was not considering the "right to life of the fetus/baby".
    
    	The discussion was controlled well and there was no hint of
    a pro either side intent. Callers to the program were cut off if
    they got over-emotional. I only listened for a half hour or so but
    the moderator and his gueats (seperately) seemed to feel that the
    Roe vs. Wade decision will be modified but not overturned.
    
    	I caught the end of a segment referring to abortion as birth
    control and the Catholic view of artificial birth control since
    the Catholic Church spearheads much of the pro-life movement.
    It was interesting to hear both sides try to defend in such a short
    span of time.
    
    	I can't give the radio station because I never heard the call
    numbers, but I have to assume it was a talk station. Not WRKO or
    WHDH, since I usually listen to them and recognize the hosts. It
    may have WNBC/WABC/WCBS (New York). 
    
    	I assume the show is in relation to Easter Sunday etc. etc.
    
    Ken  

    If abortion becomes illegal.....
    
    	How would that change the treatment for pregnancy
    	as the result of rape?  Would the victim of the rape
    	then be a criminal directly as a result of being a victim?
    
    	Would the failure of birth control devices/methods create
    	a criminal out of either responsible adult?
    
    m

    re.675 >10 years
    
    Choose between 10 years in jail or 18 years of legal obligation.
    
    Actually, civil disobedience would be interesting. Imagine a
    few million women a year having abortions and bringing the
    allready overworked legal system to it's knees.

    More questions -
    
    If abortion becomes illegal.....
    
    	How many men are willing to take responsibility for becoming
    	a single father each and every time they engage in sex in the
    	event that their birth control devices/methods fail?  How
    	would that change their lives?
    
    	In the event that a birth control device failed could the
    	pregnant woman sue the manufacturer for financial support of
    	that child?  What would that do the the cost of the devices?
    	How would the affect peoples lives?
    
    m  

    I think more of Roe v. Wade may be whittled away, but I don't believe
    the Court will actually overturn it this year.  I believe the
    pro-choice people are sufficiently alarmed that they are becoming
    mobilized.  I *hope* we won't have to deal with the questions raised
    in the past few notes!

        Nancy

    
    If abortion becomes illegal, will a father be liable for helping
    the mother have an abortion (i.e. making the decision together,
    going with her to the doctor, etc.), or will men be off the hook
    even if they would benefit as much as the woman?
    
    Roberta

    
    One of the questions I often ask...
    If abortion becomes illegal...will arbortificants (sp?) as well?
    If so, then it would seem most birth control pills will be illegal
    as they essentially 'force' a cycle--regardless of the condition.
    Now that may please the Catholic Church, but what choices does
    that leave for 'reliable' birth control?  not much it seems.....
    
    an interesting aside...
    today's Globe ran a couple of articles about adoption.  Seems there
    are some 34000 children waiting (and waiting...) to be adopted but
    as they are not "healthy, white infants" they aren't being selected.
    Meanwhile the "healthy, white adults" are spending years, and upwards
    of $5-20+ thousand to get the child of their choice.  Yet if abortion
    is outlawed, or even continues to be unfunded under medicaid/welfare
    the majority of babies born for adoption will continue to be 
    minority, unhealthy (due to poverty conditions and lack of prenatal
    care) and unadoptable...
    
    just my 2 cents worth on this very emotional topic...
    
    deb
    

    In a recent newspaper article about strategies on both sides of
    the issue (with emphasis on the no-choice strategies), it said
    that in one state they either had gotten, or were trying to get,
    a law requiring IUD and the low-dose pill to be labeled as 
    abortifacents (that spelling doesn't look right :-) ) 
    
    FWIW, the strategies of the no-choice activists were to get more
    and more aspects of abortion under state control, thus whittling
    away at the privacy foundation.
    
    Nancy

    Outlawing all abortificants would be more than a small challenge.
    Celery, cotton (the root), hemlock spruce bark, horseradish root,
    mistletoe leaves, pennyroyal, cinchona (Peruvian bark), American
    ragwort, and shepherd's purse are all abortificants, or at least
    emmenagogues.
    
    (Several other plants are as well, but they are also more poisonous.)

    							Ann B.	

re .683:

	The term "no-choice activists" is incorrect at best, and
	inflammatory at worst. Pro-life persons tend to advocate
	a choice of child bearing options, they just regard a 
	retroactive decision to be unsatisfactory, due to the
	implied change of state of the condition of one of the entities
	involved. 

	Previously, I might have simply responded in kind, now
	my only option is to register my objection.

						Tom_K

      The local Catholic hospitals (Colorado) have now banned even
      sterilizations. Seems they want to make sure any act of sex will
      be likely to cause a baby. How else could they make sure sex
      wouldn't be any fun. liesl

    Re: . 686
    
    Actually, I've often wondered about the RC's position about sex
    leading (or not leading) to procreation.
    
    With this philosophy, it would seem that women who were past menopause,
    or who were otherwise sterile, shouldn't "do the dirty deed." 
    
    I guess that's why God created one's middle finger. (Oops, that's
    a no-no, too). :-)
    
      Alan

re .686

	So don't have your sterilization done at a local Catholic
	Hospital. The RC Church provides services consistent with
	their faith to it's parishioners, and often also to the
	community at large. There is no reason to expect, indeed,
	it would be an outrage to demand, that they (or any other
	group) provide services which are inconsistent with their
	faith.

						Tom_K

    If I recall correctly, the pope recently (within last 2 yrs?)
    issued a pronouncement (or whateveritis) that recognized
    the beneficial aspects of mutually enjoyable monogomous sex
    with one's [rcc-recognized] spouse.  The [whateveritis] went
    on to state, however, that sex that was ONLY mutually
    enjoyable (i.e. without the possibility of conception) is NOT
    approved by the rcc.  Which seems to imply that the rcc no longer
    approves of the rhythm method of birth control (vatican
    roulette).
    
    /bruce