| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 733.1 | more info? | OPHION::HAYNES | Charles Haynes | Mon Feb 22 1988 22:14 | 8 |
| Hi Karen,
I don't have the Times readily available, could you please post
at least the name of the drug, and if possible the European producer?
I feel a letter coming on...
Thanks,
-- Charles
|
| 733.2 | | CIRCUS::KOLLING | Karen, Sweetie, Holly; in Calif. | Tue Feb 23 1988 15:42 | 18 |
| I have temporarily stolen the Times from the Reading Room here.
The drug is RU 486. Companies mentioned as being threatened or
as working with this or similar drugs in Europe but with no plans
to do so here are Upjohn,
Hoechst-Roussel Pharmaceuticals Inc. of Somerville, N.J. (holds
the option rights to apply for government approval to market
RU 486 in the U.S. but has declined to do so), and Sterling Drug.
The article also mentions possible uses for RU 486 in treating
endometriosis("the third leading cause of infertility in the United
States"), and breast cancer, as well as what I mentioned before
([could lead]... "to an enormous decrease in Caesarians"). Upjohn
apparently gave up its research into fertility drugs a couple of
years ago after a boycott by the same group, National Right To Life;
I assume those drugs may have been similar in effect to RU 486.
European developer of RU 486 is Roussel-Uclaf Company of France.
|
| 733.3 | | VIDEO::TEBAY | Natural phenomena invented to order | Tue Feb 23 1988 16:05 | 10 |
| Great-it is not enough that the FDA delays medical research
now prolifers do.
By the way endometriosis is a leading precursor to cancer also.
Hum- a drug that will help to prevent female causes of cancer,
have a safe abort,and probably something to do with infertility.
Second class medical care for the second class.
|
| 733.4 | | CIRCUS::KOLLING | Karen, Sweetie, Holly; in Calif. | Tue Feb 23 1988 16:16 | 3 |
| I actually expected to see at least a tiny mention of this on the
network news last night. I mean, it starts on the front page of
the Times and takes up a half page inside. Naivety lives.
|
| 733.5 | This is not suppression | WHYVAX::KRUGER | | Tue Feb 23 1988 17:16 | 10 |
| re .3
While this news isn't good, I can't see a basis for calling this
an anti-woman issue. Pro-lifers are wrong, but lots of them are
women.
Does anyone know the percentages? How many of the pro-lifers affiliated
with a group are women? Just curious.
dov
|
| 733.6 | | 3D::CHABOT | Rooms 253, '5, '7, and '9 | Tue Feb 23 1988 17:44 | 1 |
| Lots of women are anti-women.
|
| 733.7 | Aunt Janes we don't need. | CIRCUS::KOLLING | Karen, Sweetie, Holly; in Calif. | Tue Feb 23 1988 17:55 | 4 |
| Re: .5
Yes, it is suppression. The suppressees are women.
|
| 733.8 | So I either support murder or I suppress women? | CVG::THOMPSON | Question reality | Wed Feb 24 1988 13:06 | 9 |
| Personally I am very offended by the equating of people opposed to
murder with suppressers of women. Now perhaps you don't consider
abortion to be murder but please understand that many people do.
These people, myself included, don't oppose abortion because we
want to suppress women but because we value life. To say that that
makes me a suppresser of women is both untrue and offensive.
Regards,
Alfred
|
| 733.9 | | CIRCUS::KOLLING | Karen, Sweetie, Holly; in Calif. | Wed Feb 24 1988 15:40 | 5 |
| Re: .8
So, Alfred, what do you say to the husband of a woman who has died
during a Caesarian because the drug was not available?
|
| 733.10 | Explain please | CVG::THOMPSON | Question reality | Wed Feb 24 1988 16:16 | 13 |
| RE: .9 What does the drug not being available have to do with
someone dying of a Caesarean? Are you saying that everyone should
have a safe abortion rather then take the risk of having a baby?
Last I heard there were lots of safe ways to prevent becoming
pregnant in the first place. I've heard that abstention is 100%
effective for example. Not as much fun perhaps but you take the
risks in life that you are willing to pay for. Perhaps abortions
should be allowed if the pregnancy is a risk to the life of the
mother. Other then that it seems pretty hard to justify the taking
of a human life.
Alfred
|
| 733.11 | Kill the baby for the parents sins? | CVG::THOMPSON | Question reality | Wed Feb 24 1988 16:21 | 5 |
| RE: .9 So, Karen, what do you say to all the unborn babies killed
because it was inconvenient or not fun for their parents to practice
birth control?
Alfred
|
| 733.12 | If It's Murder, Then It's Murder! | FDCV03::ROSS | | Wed Feb 24 1988 16:44 | 19 |
| RE: .10
> Perhaps abortions should be allowed if the pregnancy is a risk
> to the life of the mother. Other then that it seems pretty hard
> to justify the taking of a human life.
Alfred, I guess I'm always confused when someone says that, perhaps,
if the mother's life is at risk, then abortion should be allowed.
If one believes that abortion is murder, period, then "situational-
ethics" should not be a determinant.
Either you believe that abortion is murder or not. It IS binary.
I do believe in abortion, if a woman so chooses, whatever her reasons.
Alan
|
| 733.14 | good grief! | 3D::CHABOT | Rooms 253, '5, '7, and '9 | Wed Feb 24 1988 16:50 | 5 |
| The issue is, the drug is being blocked because some lobbying groups
believe it would be used to initiate non-surgical abortions. By
so doing, they are preventing the drug from being used *even*in*
other uses, such as an alternative to caesarean surgery. That's
what Karen was pointing out Alfred.
|
| 733.15 | abortion IS murder. | SALEM::AMARTIN | nemoW SDEEN sraM | Wed Feb 24 1988 23:21 | 1 |
|
|
| 733.16 | question | VOLGA::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Wed Feb 24 1988 23:27 | 2 |
| is abortion before the fetus is viable murder?
|
| 733.17 | answer, i think... | SALEM::AMARTIN | nemoW SDEEN sraM | Wed Feb 24 1988 23:33 | 8 |
| If its alive..... yes.
I have somewhat mixed feelings about this. I do think that it is
the decision of the woman (and sometimes the man also) But I cant
help thinking and feeling that aborting a fetus (fetus=life) is
taking life thus murdering. I dono, I think that there are a million
ways that people can discuss this and never come up with a deffinate
answer.
|
| 733.18 | | AKOV11::BOYAJIAN | $50 never killed anybody | Thu Feb 25 1988 05:19 | 36 |
| re:.12
Now, I don't side with Alfred on this question, but I also disagree
with you about "situational ethics" in relation to abortion. If
"situational ethics" can be applied to murder trials (i.e. it was
in self-defense or it was done in order to save a greater number),
than there's no reason why it can't apply to abortions. Think of
an abortion performed in order to save the mother's life as a
case of self-defense.
******
As for the "abortion is murder" argument, the whole thing depends
upon the answer to the question "Is a fetus a human being?" The
common sense answer is "yes", but there are complications. It's
certainly not a fully formed human being. But it's a potential
human being, you say. True, but so is an unfertilized egg. Is
that a human being?
To skip over further rhetorical dialog, what it really comes
down to is where to draw the line. Some people believe that
"potential human" becomes "human" at conception. Some others
believe that it comes at birth. Still others believe that it
comes at some estimate of when the fetus would become viable
outside the womb.
The way I see it, the burden of proof is placed on the pro-lifer
to prove that the fetus is a human being. That it not only is a
viable-on-its-own life, but that it can think, that it has a "soul"
(or some temporal equivalent thereof). The pro-choicer shouldn't
have to prove that the fetus' humanness isn't there. Occam's Razor
applies: the simplest explanantion is the more likely. And that
a fetus is nothing more than a complex cell culture is a far simpler
explanation than that it's a human being.
--- jerry
|
| 733.19 | Just a moment now... | CHEFS::MANSFIELD | | Thu Feb 25 1988 06:19 | 18 |
|
Re Alfreds' last reply
Alfred, you cannot dismiss all unwanted pregnancies as being due
to two people `not bothering' to use contraception. What about the
victim of a rape, or a failure of contraception ?
You could argue (on the second point) that abstinence is the only
100% fool-proof method, but I'm afraid I think its unrealistic to
expect people not to have sex unless they want a child. I drive
a car to work each day, it is *possible* that one day I could have
an accident and kill someone, but I don't stop driving just in case.
I can appreciate your point of view that you think abortion is murder,
but it makes me mad when people start assuming that every unwanted
pregnancy is due to the `sins' of the parents.
Sarah.
|
| 733.20 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Question reality | Thu Feb 25 1988 08:45 | 8 |
| RE: .14 If that is what Karen was trying to say then she could (should)
have said so more clearly. I don't believe in blocking the use of
this drug for other uses. Those who know me well know that I would
never stand in the way of something that could prevent Ceaseareans
or make them safer. My wife delivered our son via Ceasearean so
Karens inflammatory remark showed more heat then light to me.
Alfred
|
| 733.21 | | MYCRFT::PARODI | John H. Parodi | Thu Feb 25 1988 09:02 | 11 |
|
Since everyone else is trotting out their dusty old arguments for and
against abortion, I thought I'd throw in two of my favorites:
First, abortion is not murder by the definition of murder --
murder is the *unlawful* taking of a human life.
Second, if a fetus is human, then why don't they hold a funeral
when a miscarriage occurs?
JP
|
| 733.22 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Question reality | Thu Feb 25 1988 09:02 | 29 |
| > Alfred, you cannot dismiss all unwanted pregnancies as being due
> to two people `not bothering' to use contraception. What about the
> victim of a rape, or a failure of contraception ?
I know that not all pregnancies are due to not bothering to use
contraception but that particular comment (reply .11) was only
meant to cover that case. The case of rape is a hard one that I've
not completely resolved. Obviously if abortion is wrong and in cases
other then 'self-defense' of the mother then it's wrong in the case
of rape as well. But forcing someone to carry that baby is pretty
hard. Perhaps in some (many) cases the argument can be made that
the mothers health (mental or otherwise) is threatened. I don't
know but I'm not going to make blanket statements about all rapes
because I don't know what it would be like for all (or perhaps any)
women.
Failure of contraception is easy. Abortion is not acceptable as
a birth control method. If you have sex you should know and be willing
to accept the risk (if that's the word you want to use) that you
may become pregnant. Now this doesn't mean that you only have sex
to have children but it does mean that you take responsibility for
your actions. If you are 100% sure that you never want children
then you either abstain from sex or act irresponsibly.
I don't believe that every unwanted pregnancy is due to the 'sins'
of the parents. I do believe that every unwanted pregnancy is due
to the parents having sex (that is still how it works right?).
Alfred
|
| 733.23 | answer | CVG::THOMPSON | Question reality | Thu Feb 25 1988 09:10 | 12 |
| >< Note 733.16 by VOLGA::B_REINKE "where the sidewalk ends" >
> -< question >-
>
> is abortion before the fetus is viable murder?
Yes. My wife and I still morn the lose of a human life from my wife's
miscarriage (approx 2 months pregnant). I see no reason not to consider
an abortion resulting in less of a death then a miscarriage. The
big difference is that abortion is preventable and many (most)
miscarriages are not.
Alfred
|
| 733.24 | food for thought | LEZAH::BOBBITT | is it soup yet? | Thu Feb 25 1988 09:54 | 18 |
| Is this the drug that was discussed in note 256 here? Just curious...
Also - if abortions are made unlawful, people desparate for an abortion
will still seek them, in the most unhealthful and expensive conditions.
I realize that there is no middle ground to this issue, and the
main questions are:
When does a fetus become a life? (thus defining the point in the
pregnancy that abortion takes place as "murder" or "surgery",
depending)
Are there any exceptions we should make to the rule? (thus defining
what conditions would permit abortion to be an acceptable alternative)
-Jody
|
| 733.25 | | MSD36::STHILAIRE | Happiness is Springsteen tix | Thu Feb 25 1988 10:45 | 28 |
| I don't think anyone could ever convince me that abortion is murder.
I, also, don't think that anyone could ever make me really consider
an undeveloped fetus a "human being." Sure, if it lives *someday*
it *will* be a human being, but it isn't yet. It can't survive
on it's own. It can't think, and talk, and walk, and say, Hey,
I'm alive, I've got plans for the future and I want a chance to
stick around and live. I can feel pain and I'm afraid to die.
A 10 year old child, for example, or an adult does have those feelings.
How can anyone equate an abortion with the murder of a fully
functioning living human being?
I firmly believe (and apparently, thankfully, so do many others)
that no woman should be forced to have a baby grow inside of her
if she doesn't want it to. Yes, if people have sex there is a chance
of pregnancy. But, sex is part of life. It's something people
do, and getting pregnant is something that can happen. It's up
to us to deal with those conditions in the best way we can. If
we have the ability to have sex and not have babies even we get
pregnant by accident - then Great! - isn't wonderful we figured
out how to do it! Isn't it great we're the most intelligent life
form on the planet so we can solve these problems for ourselves.
I basically believe that the life and wishes of the already living
pregnant woman takes precedence over the fetus right to live.
Lorna
|
| 733.26 | And what about the man? | BUFFER::LEEDBERG | An Ancient Multi-hued Dragon | Thu Feb 25 1988 11:02 | 23 |
|
Let me see now....
If a man and a woman have sex SHE might
get pregnant. If she does then she has
to carry to term whether it is good for
her or not. That is what she gets for
indulging. So, a woman had better not learn
to enjoy sex, if she does then she will have
more pregnancys, that may or may not be good
for her. So SHE should not have sex, then
she won't have to worry about getting pregnant.
So it is a woman's problem.
_peggy
(-|-)
|
|
The Goddess is not perfect
and does not expect us to be.
|
| 733.27 | hmmm... | SCOMAN::DAUGHAN | feel like jumpin the gun! | Thu Feb 25 1988 11:09 | 6 |
| someone asked me this question not too long ago: what if the man
wants his girlfriend to have an abortion and is willing to pay for
it and she wont? should he be made to pay child support for this
unwanted child(on his part that is).
i really did not know what to say...
|
| 733.28 | hmmm...well... | MSD36::STHILAIRE | Happiness is Springsteen tix | Thu Feb 25 1988 11:33 | 24 |
| Re .27, I've thought about that before, too. I *think* that I think
that the man *should* be made to pay child support even if he didn't
want the child. The child is still his flesh and blood. Men should
realize when the choose to have sex with a woman that it is possible
that a child could result. They should not take it for granted
that a woman will be willing to have an abortion if an accident
happens. I think the decent human feeling would be that, regardless
of how it happened, there is a child on this earth that is mine,
and therefore I am responsible.
There are some roles we are forced into by nature I guess. Women
can get pregnant and because the child is in their bodies they get
to decide whether they have an abortion or have a baby. The baby
just isn't inside the man. That's the way it happens so he doesn't
get to make that choice. But, if the baby is born, it's his kid,
and he's half responsible for taking care of it.
Lorna
P.S. I admit it would be a bummer to have a woman you didn't love
have a kid you didn't want. But, it's just wrong to walk away from
your own child, once it's here. I believe in abortion but once
the baby *is* born, ya gotta take care of it.
|
| 733.29 | murder | CADSYS::SULLIVAN | Karen - 225-4096 | Thu Feb 25 1988 11:40 | 32 |
| If someone were dieing because they needed a kidney, and
your kidney was compatible, and if you gave it to them they
would live, is it murder if you refuse?
If their relatives came into your house and kidnapped you and
hooked you up to the dieing person so that they were using your
kidney and you woke up and made them unhook you, is that murder?
If someone came into your home and started smoking and wouldn't
quit and you had asthma and were about to go into an attack
where you might die (or maybe your health might be affected some)
and you forcibly removed them so they didn't have any place
to go and there was a blizzard and they died, is that murder?
If you are in the slums and someone is hungry and asks you
for food and you refuse and they die, is that murder?
If you were very careful and used birth control and got
pregnant anyways, and you couldn't afford to take any time
off your job because you would be fired, and you knew you
couldn't afford to feed yourself properly to ensure a healthy
baby and if your boss find out you might be fired anyways,
and your family would cast you off and you had an abortion
when the child was only an embryo, is that murder?
If the answer to all the above is yes, then is murder always
a bad thing? Should we each try to deal with moral dilemmas
according to our own beliefs? Can I judge another's act
without being in their position?
...Karen
|
| 733.30 | fini for me on this topic | CVG::THOMPSON | Question reality | Thu Feb 25 1988 12:54 | 32 |
| .24> Also - if abortions are made unlawful, people desparate for an abortion
.24> will still seek them, in the most unhealthful and expensive conditions.
If murder is made unlawful, people desperate to kill people still
will. Some of them will get caught and either jailed or killed.
Perhaps we should make murder legal and save them from that tragedy?
RE: .26 and .27 If a man has sex he should be just as prepared and
willing to raise and care for any child that might result. This
is one of the reasons that sex outside of marriage and the resulting
level of commitment and stability is stupid and unsafe. Why a women
would have sex without commitment is beyond me. A man shouldn't
either but the 'risk' is not as high which tends to make one more
careless.
RE: The topic of abortion in general. Jerry and I disagree about
a basic assumption. He (and many of you) feel the simplest explanation
is that the fetus is not yet human (until some time period that
varies in different opinions). I believe the simplest and most
logical explanation is that the fetus is human. This is mostly
a philosophical/religious decision and therefore not likely to
be resolved by debate. A debate on the rightness/wrongness of abortion
was not the intent of my first reply in this topic. I was trying
to make a point that calling anti-abortionists repressors of women
showed a total lack of understanding of the reasoning behind opposition
to abortion. It also shows a lack of valuing of differences that
shocks me. Denying the right of people to prevent abortions (or
to at least speak out against it) is the exact same thing as denying
people the right to speak out against slavery, discrimination, or
war.
Alfred (calling it quits in this topic)
|
| 733.31 | thank goodness | 3D::CHABOT | Rooms 253, '5, '7, and '9 | Thu Feb 25 1988 14:50 | 4 |
| Speak: yes; prevent: no.
------------
Lorna--thanks for those articulate replies!
|
| 733.32 | I tried not to reply I really did | CVG::THOMPSON | Question reality | Thu Feb 25 1988 14:58 | 11 |
| Sorry can't help myself.
> Speak: yes; prevent: no.
> ------------
Then I can count on you not to try and prevent rape and murder?
Or is there a double standard in that people only have a right to
prevent things you think are wrong? Not that I think rape and murder
are ok but they are no worse then abortion.
Alfred
|
| 733.33 | Suuuuuuuuure you did | 3D::CHABOT | Rooms 253, '5, '7, and '9 | Thu Feb 25 1988 16:21 | 5 |
| No, you can't count on me to do anything. Except perhaps to agree
that you have the right to speak your views, as long as your manner
of speaking does not infringe upon anyone else's rights. However,
you persist in calling me "murderer", so I shall persist in calling
you "repressor". There, now isn't that a happy thing.
|
| 733.34 | | MYCRFT::PARODI | John H. Parodi | Fri Feb 26 1988 09:32 | 13 |
|
Alfred, this subject has apparently made you lose the calm rationality
I've come to appreciate in your notes. Rape and murder are crimes while
abortion is not; therefore two standards are required.
That you think abortion is just as bad as rape or murder is an opinion --
or a religious belief -- and one that is not shared by the Supreme Court.
If by prevention, you mean working toward changing the laws, press on.
JP
|
| 733.35 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Question reality | Fri Feb 26 1988 10:07 | 8 |
| > If by prevention, you mean working toward changing the laws, press on.
This is exactly what I believe .31 was telling me I did not have
the right to do. That does tend to make me lose by calm. I apologize
for my tone. I just can not stand idly by while people are killed.
Sorry if that is unpopular here.
Alfred
|
| 733.36 | | SCOMAN::DAUGHAN | feel like jumpin the gun! | Fri Feb 26 1988 10:55 | 7 |
| well alfred,if the law did get changed.
the luckier women could fly out of the country(canada,mexico,bermuda).
the poorer women would die or over burden the already over burdened
welfare sysytem.
kelly
|
| 733.37 | | CHEFS::MANSFIELD | | Fri Feb 26 1988 12:25 | 12 |
|
Can I ask a question here ?
What exactly is the law on abortion in the US ? In England the law
is that an abortion is permissible if to continue the pregnancy
would (endanger) the mother's mental or physical health. (I put
endanger in brackets because I can't remember the exact way it's
put, basically in theory this means that abortion on demand is not
legal, in practice I think it means that it is a matter of finding
a doctor who does not oppose the idea of abortion.)
Sarah.
|
| 733.38 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Question reality | Fri Feb 26 1988 13:28 | 18 |
| RE: .36 So then what you are saying is that if it's legal anywhere
in the world it should be legal here? Is that it? Does that go for
everything?
I'm sorry. If something is wrong it shouldn't be allowed just because
the rich can get away with it by leaving the country.
You also ignore the fact that every women (except in the case of
rape) has the option not to get pregnant in the first place. Being
poor doesn't mean you have to get pregnant any more then getting
pregnant means you have to die. Lot's of women bare children with
out dieing. Your arguments do not wash.
RE: .37 In the US any woman who wants an abortion can have it until
the nth (I forget) month of pregnancy. The government in some areas
will pay for it too.
Alfred
|
| 733.39 | | NSG022::POIRIER | Suzanne | Fri Feb 26 1988 13:36 | 11 |
|
a woman may have an abortion in a clinic during her first tri-mester.
a woman must have an abortion in a hospital if it is during her
second tri-mester.
a woman may only have an abortion in her third tri-mester if carrying
the baby to term will endanger her well being.
I believe this is the way the law stands in the US with other
restrictions on some minors and medicare in some state laws.
|
| 733.40 | Why cant it happen? | GORT::MACKINNON | | Fri Feb 26 1988 15:00 | 34 |
|
Isn't the issue here WHY this drug is not being allowed in the
United States NOT whether or not abortion is murder?
As long as woman are able to concieve the issue of abortion will
always be with us. I got pregnant while I was on the Pill.
Unfortunately I was told that due to the fact that I was on
the pill the fetus would be severly damaged. So I made a conscious
decision to abort the fetus. Belive me I wouldnt wish this on
anyone. Making this decision and following through with it were
incredibly difficult. If I were given the chance to use a drug
instead of going through an abortion procedure, beleive me I would
have given anything to take the drug.
I went through a lot both emotionally and physically. I have
made peace with my decision, but it infuriates me that men are
so adament in their opposition. The decision is not theirs to
make. They are not the ones to actually experience the procedure.
If only they were able to get pregnant I'm sure they would be
alot more sympathetic. The father of my child was so upset that
I got pregnant in the first place. He made up his mind that abortion
was the only choice.
Why dont these pro-lifers accept the fact that each individual
case is different. And that abortion is not something a woman
wants to do. In most cases it is the only alternative. It amazes
me that these people are so concerned about the life of an unborn
person, but where are they when the child enters the world ?
Where are they when these now living persons are not being taken
care of or even abused?
If this drug can benifit all woman not just those seeking
abortions, then what is wrong with allowing it to be distributed
in the United States?
|
| 733.42 | | LIONEL::SAISI | Opining away | Fri Feb 26 1988 15:14 | 9 |
| Re .38
"You also ignore the fact that every woman (except in the case
^^^^^^^^^^^
of rape) has the option not to get pregnant in the first place."
Fine, but understand that the only way for a woman to assure
- as in 100% certainty - that she won't get pregnant is to be
sterilized, or to remain celibate. Do you think that these are
reasonable options?
|
| 733.43 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Question reality | Fri Feb 26 1988 15:39 | 19 |
| RE: .42 Yes, of course those are reasonable options.
RE: .41 Do you really believe that *most* abortions are the result
of that being the *only* alternative. In other words most abortions
are the result of pregnancies were either the mother faces serious
risk of death or that the baby will be severely deformed? Really? I don't
but if you have statistics I'd like to see them. The great majority
of abortions I've heard about are because the mother just didn't
want to have a baby at that time. With all the people who want to
adopt, abortion hardly seems like the only alternative in those
cases.
RE: The topic of abortion. I really don't understand how women
can support the idea of abortion on demand. I'm sorry I really
don't. It would be easy for a man to say it's not alive because
he doesn't ever get to feel an other life in his body. But women
do!
Alfred
|
| 733.44 | | 3D::CHABOT | Rooms 253, '5, '7, and '9 | Fri Feb 26 1988 16:05 | 25 |
| Fine. You don't understand it: now would you please stop calling
those of us who do understand it "murderers". If you can't stop
that, would you like to go away and meditate for a few hours on
how insensitive you've been to some members of this conference who've
told us about their experiences. Topics: have any of your friends
admitted to having abortions?
a) if yes, have you called her "murderer" to her face?
. if not, why not?
. if so, what happened?
b) if not, do you suppose that some of them may have but have
not told you?
. if so, why do you think they wouldn't tell _you_, and
if there is any reason in your behavior preventing
someone from telling you about their life, could this
perhaps be restricting the amount of information on the
subject from which to base your own views.
. if not, how are you sure?
>Do you really believe that *most* abortions are the result
of that being the *only* alternative.
I do not presume to judge. Others have their own reasons for their
paths in life; as an outsider, I cannot presume to know these reasons.
I have met and talked with many women who have talked about having
abortions: have you?
|
| 733.45 | | LIONEL::SAISI | Opining away | Fri Feb 26 1988 16:45 | 24 |
| re .43
No I don't believe that most unwanted pregnancies are the result
of failed contraception. I believe the reasons may include:
failed contraception
ignorance about birth control methods
lack of availability of effective birth control
irresponsibility
demand of the partner for sex without birth control
The only point I am trying to make is, in your opposition
to abortion, don't trivialize the effect of an unwanted pregnancy
on a woman's life with the satisfying thought, "she was
irresponsible, it is her own fault" (which by the way ignores
the man's involvement in the whole thing).
At least be honest enough to say, "A woman should not have
total control over her body if it is supporting another life.
If she get's pregnant against her wishes, too bad."
BTW - an anti-abortionist has alot more credibility with me
if they support sex education and confidential birth control
counselling in the schools, and full federal funding for
family planning centers. Also government subsidized day care.
And does whatever they can to remove the stigma from single
motherhood.
|
| 733.46 | Woman's Problem? Then Woman's Choice. | PNEUMA::SULLIVAN | Singing for our lives | Fri Feb 26 1988 18:47 | 22 |
| This is not a simple issue. I would not want to have to
face the issue of abortion for myself. And it makes me sad that
people that I care about have had to face that issue. But one thing
that's really clear in my mind is that we have to stop defining
pregnancy as punishment for having sex. Also as long as it is legal
in this country for a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy,
it really seems wrong to me that women are being denied access to
a non-surgical (and possibly safer?) procedure for exercising that
legal right.
I think the right to choose is central to women's struggle for
equality, but I really wish that abortions only had to happen in
those rarer cases of danger to the mother or failed contraception.
Not because I define abortion as murder... but because the women
I've known who have had abortions have suffered greatly both
physically and emotionally at having had to make that decision.
In a better world, men and women will share the responsibility for
avoiding unwanted pregnancy. I often wonder how many anti-choice
men have ever engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse with a woman...
Justine
|
| 733.47 | I wanna talk, can I?? | SALEM::AMARTIN | nemoW SDEEN sraM | Fri Feb 26 1988 23:36 | 33 |
| re:40
I have been trying to keep from saying anything about this because
it is a very touchy thing for me but you made a couple of statements
that piss me right the ....off!
1. Men are not the only ones that are "prolifers", I know of a couple
of women that ARE, MY WIFE INCLUDED!
2. You say that "It is not their decision" (meaning men). OH REALLY?
Hows this for expressing feelings!
When I was 19 in the navy I fell in what I thought "in love" with
(again what I thought) a wonderful women. We made love when ever
I came back home from a cruise. She got pregnant, and while I was
out to sea she had it aborted! And as you and others say, I have
no rights?! It is not my decision!? The hell it aint!!! I "made"
that human and I sure and hell have as much right to decide as she
does. (granted it IS her body and no matter what I say it is her
decision) She did not even tell me until I was home a month or so.
SO, ALL you people out there, DON'T go telling me that I AS A MAN
DO NOT UNDERTSAND! I DO! I know what it feels like to hurt, I
know what it feels like to be told I don't matter.
I ave a 1 1/2 year old and my wife is due in a couple of weeks.
I was not ready for another child and neither was my wife. I have
my business and school and she has her school. It happened while
she was on the pill. Did sh/we abort? NO! Why? Because it is life
and it Is WRONG to take life. YES, there is a chance that it will
have problems, but it still is life! I will love him/her whether
ner/him is healthy/perfect or complications.
With the possibility that I might start sounding UNmacho or (god
forbid) sensative, I must stop. These memories/thoughts STILL bring
back a bunch of PAIN. Yes I DO FEEL PAIN.
Al Martin
PS. Bonnie, thank you. I do feel better.
|
| 733.49 | speaking from the heart | TWEED::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Sat Feb 27 1988 08:22 | 7 |
| re .47 Al, thankyou for speaking out of your own experience and
pain.
Bonnie J
also this is a slight rat hole, but in other notes on adoption women
have inidcated to me that agencies are in general not very supportive
of women who decide for adoption.
|
| 733.50 | Clearing things up | GORT::MACKINNON | | Mon Feb 29 1988 08:04 | 46 |
|
RE: 47
1. I did not make any reference to the gender of pro-lifers.
I am very aware that they are both male as well as female.
I was raised in an Irish-Catholic family which is full of
pro-lifers both male and female.
2. Yes I stated that the decision is not the man's decision
to make. However, you stated "granted is is her body and
no matter what I say it is her decision." So you have
proved my point that the ultimate decision lies with the
pregnant woman.
3. As far as you as a man do not understand. You are a minority
in this case. Yes you do have the right to your feelings
and no one can take those away from you. When I had the
procedure done there were many other woman having it done
as well. And after talking to these woman about their
situations, a common theme was apparent. And that theme
was that nearly 2/3's of the fathers demanded the abortions.
This would tend to send a message that these particular men
did not understand.
The point I wanted to make was that men can not fully understand
the emotions that a woman feels surrounding this issue.
I dont believe a man can fully understand what it is like
to actually experience an abortion because they are not
able to go through the procedure. I did not want to make
the point that all men dont have any feelings about it.
It is a very painful thing to have to go through, and
yes some men experience the hurt because they really care.
These men though seem to be a minority.
As I stated earlier, I was raised in an Irish-Catholic
family. And it is against my religion to abort.
I aborted because I feel this world of ours is hard
enough to survive in with your health and a stable
family unit. These I could not give my child.
I was raised in a single parent home and I dont
feel it is right to deny a child both parents.
The father of my child was not going to make a
commitment to his child. I still feel I made the
right decision.
|
| 733.51 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Question reality | Mon Feb 29 1988 09:35 | 18 |
| I don't understand why people assume that I'm against sex education,
government help in teaching people about birth control, etc just
because I'm against abortion. I'm all in favor of those things.
I also don't understand how in spite of several times talking
about the man's responsibility I keep being unjustly accused of
just 'blaming' the women for getting pregnant. I've said before
that I think *both* people should be prepared to raise a child
before having sex.
As an aside, two women in my family have had abortions. No I did
not tell them they were murders. Others did though and they both
now believe they took a life. They each got pregnant at a time in
their life when they felt they couldn't raise a child again (one
was involved in an abusive husband situation) but the second
time they gave the babies up for adoption. The family has been
very supportive of them both in the second situation.
Alfred
|
| 733.52 | exit | LEZAH::BOBBITT | Tea in the Sahara with you... | Mon Feb 29 1988 10:10 | 99 |
| /This was forwarded to me from soc.women. I thought it might interest
you.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: RU486
According to an article by New York Times reporter Gina Kolata, the
Pro-Life movement has conspired to prevent the use in the USA of a
new drug that could reduce the risks of abortion and make birth
easier and safer for many women.
The article appeared locally in the Albany TIMES-UNION under the
headline "ABORTION DRUG BLOCKED BY FEARS OF RIGHT-TO-LIFERS" on
Monday, Feb. 22, 1988.
The article says the drug, RU486, when combined with prostaglandin,
is safer than surgical abortion and is so effective that, "where it
is available, it may nearly replace surgical abortion in the first
trimester." It is expected to be approved for sale in France and
China in March, and is expected to be marketed within a year in
Sweden, the Netherlands and England.
Experts also say it may have a use in other situations, such as in
widening the birth canal, which would enable many women to avoid
Caesarian section. It may also be useful in treating some forms of
breast cancer and endometriosis, "a leading cause of infertility."
"Once a drug receives federal approval for marketing for any
purpose, physicians can prescribe it to patients at their
discretion."
But here comes the scary stuff. Hoechst-Roussell Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., of Somerville, NJ, which holds the rights to rights to market
the drug in the United States, has declined to ask for FDA
approval. The reason given is simple: economic survival.
The National Right to Life and other anti-choice groups have
threatened to boycott any company that introduces RU486 or any other
abortion-inducing drug. Dr. Richard Glasgow, "education director" of
National Right to Life, has said that NRL would organize a massive
boycott of all the products of any company which did so, unless the
drug was "the only one available for the treatment of a life
threatening illness."
The medical profession is understandably upset about the intrusion
of a purely-political, non-medical organization into the sacred duty
of physicians to do what is in their opinion the best thing for
their patients.
Because of these anti-choice people, women are being denied a safer,
less expensive way to exercise their hard-won legal right to
abortion. Indeed, experts predict that RU486 would eliminate
abortion clinics, allowing first trimester abortions to be done by a
woman's own gynecologist in the privacy of a routine visit.
And THIS is why the anti-choicers oppose the drug. It strips from
them their ability to monitor who is getting and performing
abortions. No more will the Federal Government be able to restrict
funding based on whether a clinic will perform a lawful abortion for
a woman patient, because they will not be able to tell. No longer
will anti-choice fanatics be able to intimidate, harass and
fire-bomb abortion clinics, since they'd have to do so to every
gynecologist, group practice, hospital and HMO in the country.
Something must be done! Women must NOT be denied the significant
improvement in their safety and privacy which this new drug would
afford. But what can be done ?
1. Write your Senator and Representative about it.
2. Write NOW or other women's groups about it.
3. Organize an ANTI-BOYCOTT: pledge to PREFERENTIALLY BUY
Hoechst-Roussell products IF they get approval for the drug.
4. Form a new corporation, deal with H-R to obtain the rights,
and get approval. Since the new drug is the only product that
the new corporation would market, it would be immune to boycott.
5. Sink REALLY low: boycott H-R if they DON'T seek approval.
Something really should be done. Imagine the difference if you could
discuss an abortion with just your gynecologist or family doctor,
rather than having to go to a stranger at an obvious abortion clinic.
Well, women of soc.women, here's the ball. You're a bunch of the
most networked women in the world. You're probably above-average in
economic clout. Many of you are dedicated to the liberation of women
from the oppressions of a male-dominated society.
Here's your chance. I think if option 4 above could be done, it
would make a BUNDLE in a very short years. Hell, I'd like to be a
stock-holder, if you'd have me. I could scrape a few K together.
Just don't let any anti-choice people buy stock; keep it a PRIVATE
corporation. Maybe NOW would buy stock ?
Good luck.
|
| 733.53 | agreed..it can go both ways then. | SALEM::AMARTIN | nemoW SDEEN sraM | Mon Feb 29 1988 23:33 | 2 |
| RE: 50
Point taken. Thank you.
|
| 733.54 | Very complex issue, to my mind | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Sat Mar 05 1988 00:37 | 105 |
| Complex opinion on a complex topic. If you find contradictions
in what I'm about to say, that's not too surprising. This is an
extremely hard ethical issue.
I am both pro-life and pro-choice. Kinda weird, eh?
Personally, I believe that abortion is wrong. I don't know if
I'd classify it as murder. It is the taking of a life, so far as
I'm concerned, but there are lots of ways of taking a life that
are wrong and not murder. I am definitely anti-abortion and I am
because I am pro-life.
On the other hand, I recognize that when life starts and when a
human becomes human is a judgement call, and reasonable people
can make that call in different ways. I don't see how anyone can
believe that at least a third trimester fetus with brain
activity who could survive on its own if it were born premature
isn't a baby, but before that, I can see that it's a really gray
issue, and I will admit that just because I can't see doesn't
make it wrong. So, in the end I'm pro-choice. We have to allow
people to make the moral judgement themselves.
I think that the drug should be made available. It should be
controlled just as any other drug is. It has other uses, uses
that can save lives. It is a terrible thing to outlaw something
that could save lives just because it can be abused. Regulate it
if need be, but to ban it--either by law or by intimidation is,
I think, wrong.
Would I tell my friends who have had abortions that they are
murderers? No. Have I told friends that have had or considered
abortions that I think it is the taking of a life and wrong?
Yes. I've also told them that I would support them in whatever
they had to do. I have told them that it is a hard moral
judgement to make and to live with. I have told them what my
moral judgement is. I have advised them if they requested
advice. But I have also told them that it is their decision, and
that I love and respect them and that I will support them even
if they make crucial moral judgment calls differently than I
would. Isn't that what friendship is all about? Haven't we all
made wrong calls in our lives?
Should we have funerals for miscarried fetuses? Well, in our
case maybe it would have helped. Maybe it would have helped me
to resolve my grief better than just weeping about it
periodically over the last several months. Maybe it would have
made it clearer to my six year old, so that when the due date
came around he wouldn't have started talking about the baby that
was growing in Mama's tummy and would come out soon, 4 months
after we'd lost it.
My baby died last summer. It doesn't matter that it wasn't born
yet. It doesn't matter that my wife had been having problems
during the pregnancy, and it probably would have had problems.
It was still my baby, and it had lived and moved and gladdened
our hearts and it died. At times I feel worse about that loss
than about any of my other relatives that have died. They at
least knew the joys of life, however briefly. Maybe if we'd
treated it like the death it was it would be easier to live
with.
If you have sex when you can't or won't be responsible to raise
the child, and a life gets started, something unfair and wrong
is going to happen. The only question is what. By the time
you're in the situation of an unwanted pregnancy you've already
lost. My view here is very similar to my view on divorce. There
is no fair outcome. If you break a single household into two,
the ecconomic reality is that someone will suffer. The question
is who.
Similarly, my own solution to the problem is to avoid the
situation. There are several ways you can avoid it. Always be
willing to be responsible for children you might create. Only
have sex in the context of a relationship which you are willing
to turn into a full-time at least 20 year commitment. Always use
multiple effective forms of birth control. Once you've had all
the children you want--consider sterilization.
The draw-backs of my solutions are the same, too. You can't
completely wipe out failed marriages, and you can't wipe out
unwanted pregnancies. Given that, unless you deny people the
right to make moral choices, you can't eliminate divorce or
abortion. BUT both could be reduced by a couple orders of
magnitutde, if people would just take full responsibility for
their lives. Both situations inevitably lead to suffering, and
the situations are moderately avoidable. That we allow all of
that suffering is tragic.
Rather than fight about abortion, divorce, and alimony, it would
be far far better to work to avoid unwanted pregnancy, and to
work to keep marriages working. It is more important to teach
the coming generations how to take responsibility for their
lives and to make their lives work, and to understand that in
some situations there is no win, no fair solution.
The solution is to focus on love, to love our spouses and the
children we make, to love the children made by others who can't
or won't raise them, to love our friends who are in bad
situations and have no good way out. The solution is not to
focus on our own selfish needs when we have helped to build a
situation where someone will suffer. The solution is to not
create situations where the rights and well being of the
husband, wife and child are all in mutual conflict.
JimB.
|
| 733.55 | Female Choice & Male NoChoice???? | YODA::BARANSKI | Words have too little bandwidth... | Tue Apr 05 1988 15:49 | 69 |
| "Second, if a fetus is human, then why don't they hold a funeral when a
miscarriage occurs?"
Many people do.
RE: .12
'Why allow abortion is mother's life is endangered?'
The case where abortion should be considered is when the pregnancy/birth
threatens the mother's life to the extent that both the mother and the baby will
die, in which case performing the abortion allows the mother to live, even
though in either case, the baby would die.
I draw the line of where 'humanness' starts at conception. Conception is a
discrete event, making it an easy place to draw the line. It is harder to draw
a concrete line any other place between conception and birth. Certainly in the
last months before birth, a fetus is human. Consider what it would be like to
consider children nonhuman? "Certainly by any adult standards, the little
buggers are *insane*!"
RE: .26 "And what about the man?"
The man has to pay 1/3rd of his gross pay in child support for the next 18
years *or more*. I consider that more devastivating then carrying an unwanted
child to birth. To put it bluntly, I'd rather be @#&ed!
RE: .28 'Men should pay even if they wish to have the child aborted'
That sounds like blatent discrimination to me! Let me get this straight;
you say that:
Women should be able to have an abortion for any reason.
Men should not have any say in whether their baby is aborted or not.
Men should not have any say in whether they support the child or not.
allow me to assume:
Women may choose to have their children adopted or not.
Men may not have any say in whether their children are put up for adoption.
What do those statements say to you, People? To me, a man, I say they suck!
I have two lovely young sons, the first of whom was concieved when we were both
in school, and neither of us had a full time job. Did we consider abortion? No.
Neither of these children were planned or wanted, but they have a right to life.
RE: .50
"As far as you as a man do not understand. You are a minority in this case. And
that theme was that nearly 2/3's of the fathers demanded the abortions. This
would tend to send a message that these particular men did not understand. "
Why do you feel Al (and I) do not understand? Why, just because he is amoung
the ?minority? of fathers who want their children to have a right to life should
he not have any say in the matter? By your rationale that fathers who do not
want the children do not understand, fathers who DO want the children should be
deemed as understanding, and *should* have some say in the matter! As more and
more male are given a *CHANCE* to "parent" more will want their children, and
more will want the choice to "parent" their children and be supported by someone
else!
Trivia: Hearing men talk about sterilization, and women talk about abortion, I
have heard the women say that the feelings the men describe undergoing
sterilization to be very similiar to that of a woman having/had an abortion.
Oh, and about the topic? The drug should be made available.
Jim.
|
| 733.56 | It's her body; she makes the choices | OPHION::KARLTON | Phil Karlton, Western Software Lab | Tue Apr 05 1988 21:10 | 30 |
| Re: .55
Here is what I, as one man, do say
o Women should be able to have an abortion for any reason.
o Men should not have any say in whether the baby is aborted or not.
o The non-custodial parent should not have any say in whether they
support the child or not. The responsibility is to the child,
not to the other parent.
o If the custodial parent chooses to relinquish that burden, then
the non-custodial parent should have an opportunity to become the
custodian.
The first two points are not gender blind because it is the woman
who must carry the fetus in her body. It may not seem "fair", but
that is one fact of life that has not be changed, yet.
Re: trivia and men talking about sterilization: my feeling undergoing
sterilization was merely one that my wife would no longer have to
assume the risk of taking birth control pills. I cannot imagine
that would be at all similar to "that of a woman having/had an
abortion." Your "trivial" point, trivializes the real pain and
suffering that some members of this conference, no doubt, have had
deal with.
PK
|
| 733.57 | | MYCRFT::PARODI | John H. Parodi | Wed Apr 06 1988 09:50 | 12 |
|
>>"Second, if a fetus is human, then why don't they hold a funeral when a
>>miscarriage occurs?"
>Many people do.
No they don't, Jim. Many people hold a memorial service but that
service almost never involves cremation or burial, as a funeral does.
Therefore, there is a difference in the treatment of fetal remains and
human remains.
JP
|
| 733.58 | | MARCIE::JLAMOTTE | The best is yet to be | Wed Apr 06 1988 15:12 | 1 |
| Catholics hold a burial service after the fetus reaches six months.
|
| 733.59 | | CASV01::AUSTIN | C'mon Eddie, kiss your Aunt Bunny | Tue Apr 12 1988 12:01 | 18 |
|
I believe that a woman should have the right to do what she wants
with her body, period!
But I can't see how there can be an argument about whether the
fetus is human or not. That, to me, is just bullsh*t used to justify
the act of abortions.
We all started out as fetuses right? and if we were aborted
we wouldn't be here right? So whats the argument?
Woman have abortions for many reasons and thats their business, but
all the junk about whether its killing a human life or not, in my opinion
is ridiculous. Thats obvious!
Tanya
|
| 733.60 | Problem is, pregnancy isn't an EOE | JENEVR::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Tue Apr 12 1988 19:44 | 12 |
| To me, it's a case of irreconcilable positions.
It's the woman's body and she shouldn't be forced to undergo the
risks and discomforts of pregnancy unless she wants to.
The child is a product of both the mother *and* the father, and
neither has a right to deprive the other of that offspring *or*
to force the other to provide that offspring.
A woman who doesn't want a child can wind up carrying one to term.
A man who really wants a child can wind up losing one before term.
Biology is so inconsiderate sometimes.
|
| 733.61 | Abortion and Adoption | MARCIE::JLAMOTTE | The best is yet to be | Tue Apr 12 1988 20:13 | 21 |
| .60
"or force .....to provide for that offspring"
The child is a product of both the mother *and* the father and they
both should share equally in the emotional and financial support of their
offspring. This is a moral responsibility and their are legal
requirements for the support of children which in some cases are
not fair or equitable.
Should a prospective father be able to prevent an abortion or insist
on one...emphatically no. But should there be some recourse for
a man who was coerced into impregnating a woman? Yes. Should a
man be able to adopt his child if the mother puts it out for adoption?
Yes. And last but not least should a father be able to force the
mother to put the child up for adoption? That's a tough one...but
it is something we have to think about. We (women) cannot have
it all and if we do not have a contract (marriage) that spells out
either explicitly or by implication the responsibilities of the
partners we may have to accept the fact that if we choose to keep
an unplanned child we may have to raise that child alone.
|
| 733.62 | No simple answers | ULTRA::WITTENBERG | Secure Systems for Insecure People | Wed Apr 13 1988 11:19 | 47 |
| >< Note 733.59 by CASV01::AUSTIN "C'mon Eddie, kiss your Aunt Bunny" >
> I believe that a woman should have the right to do what she wants
> with her body, period!
There are limits to all freedoms. It's illegal in many states for
a person to commit suicide, which is another limit on what a woman
(or a man, for that matter) can do with her body.
>
> We all started out as fetuses right? and if we were aborted
> we wouldn't be here right? So whats the argument?
And before that we were all zygotes, and gametes before that. At
some point it becomes ludicrous to speak of a small part of
something has the same as the person (I wouldn't call each atom in
a body fundamentally human.) The fundamental disagreement between
the pro-choice and pro-life groups is over when life begins. It
seems that almost everyone agrees that it begins sometime between
fertiliaztion and birth (inclusive).
And if our parents hadn't met some place we wouldn't be here, but
I don't regard my parents meeting place as somehow human.
>
> Woman have abortions for many reasons and thats their business, but
> all the junk about whether its killing a human life or not, in my opinion
> is ridiculous. Thats obvious!
Do you really believe that killing humans is acceptable? Are there
any limits on who I can kill? This is patently absurd. Even
genocidal groups (including the Nazis and the southern lynch mobs,
among others) first convince themselves that their victims are
somehow not human before they can justify the killings.
I wish I could see this issue as a simple one, but it isn't
simple. Most real world problems aren't and we do ourselves a
disservice by trying to apply simple solutions to problems that
aren't simple.
"For every problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,
and wrong."
--David
|
| 733.63 | can you try a dead person? | CADSYS::SULLIVAN | Karen - 225-4096 | Wed Apr 13 1988 11:54 | 16 |
| RE: .62
I'm sorry, I just had to laugh!
�> I believe that a woman should have the right to do what she wants
�> with her body, period!
�
� There are limits to all freedoms. It's illegal in many states for
� a person to commit suicide, which is another limit on what a woman
� (or a man, for that matter) can do with her body.
What are they going to do, jail them? Give them the death
sentence? :-)
But seriously, the fact that laws exist is never a justification
to a moral stance.
|
| 733.64 | They *Were* Prosecuted | FDCV03::ROSS | | Wed Apr 13 1988 12:13 | 15 |
| RE: .63
> What are thet going to do, jail them? Give them the death
> sentence? :-)
Karen, at one (still may be on the statute books) time in
Massachusetts, a person who attempted suicide - and failed -
was criminally prosecuted for his/her attempt.
At the least, he/she was "institutionalized" against his/her
will, for a period of time (Presumably until this aberrant
tendency was cured).
Alan
|
| 733.65 | another way of looking at it | VIA::RANDALL | back in the notes life again | Wed Apr 13 1988 12:17 | 20 |
| re: .62
Every time you kill another person, it isn't considered a murder.
Sometimes it's considered "justifiable homocide" or even just bad
luck.
Self-defense is one well-known category. So is killing in war. We
don't blame a policeman for killing a criminal or a person who
caused someone else's death in a traffic accident. Well, sometimes
we do, depending on the circumstances, but generally it's just
an unfortunate accident.
For many of us, abortion falls in the same category. We don't
want to gloss over the fact that we're ending a human life when we
have an abortion, but we acknowledge the mother's right to end
that life rather than carry it to term.
That doesn't make it murder, though.
--bonnie
|
| 733.66 | update | GNUVAX::BOBBITT | showtime, Synergy... | Fri May 06 1988 14:26 | 16 |
| On the news this morning:
Although it is suspected that this new drug could do more than cause
simple abortions (with a Doctor's guidance - of course - the only
safe way to use anything of this nature) - i.e. widen the birth
canal for difficult births and also provide birth control of a sort
- the company that has the rights to it will not even seek FDA approval
in the US for distribution. It is simply too controversial, and
would result in too many people boycotting the drug company's other
products (this from a company higher-up). There were intimations
of some sort of health risk associated with its use, but the company
assured that, with proper guidance from a doctor, there are no great
hazards associated with the drug.
-Jody
|
| 733.67 | how trivial... | YODA::BARANSKI | Would You rather be Happy or Right? | Tue May 10 1988 20:01 | 14 |
| You may not have had any emotional reaction to being sterilized, but I know of
other men who have. I think that in calling their experience 'trivializing' you
trivialize their experience.
I do not see any emotional difference between a memorial service and a funeral.
Aren't cases where there is no recoverable bodies also memorial services? I have
been to funerals called memorial services and vice versa, and have not seen a
difference.
Some of the reasons for killing humans without it being murder mentioned
are: Self Defense, War, Accident, killing Criminals. I do not see how abortion
fits into any of these categories and thus be 'killing but not murder'.
JMB
|
| 733.68 | Abortion can never be "murder" if it is legal. | STAR::BECK | Paul Beck | DECnet-VAX | Wed May 11 1988 00:55 | 4 |
| Murder is an emotionally charged word, and is generally misapplied
to abortions with the specific intent of stirring emotion. However,
technically, murder is the *unlawful* taking of human life. Any
abortion which is performed within the law is therefore NOT murder.
|
| 733.69 | | AKOV11::BOYAJIAN | Monsters from the Id | Wed May 11 1988 03:07 | 22 |
| re:.67
�Some of the reasons for killing humans without it being murder
mentioned are: Self Defense, War, Accident, killing Criminals. I
do not see how abortion fits into any of these categories and
thus be 'killing but not murder'.�
Why does it have to fit any of those categories? Is the list of
"reasons for killing humans without it being murder" a closed
set? Why can't abortion just be added to the list? I'm not
asking for your specific arguments against abortion. Forget that
it's abortion that's being discussed. I'm just wondering why
some action cannot be added to the list.
As the previous note said, the law *defines* what is (and, by
extension, what is not) murder. The listed "reasons for killing
without it being murder" are not murder because the law says so,
not because of a higher moral reason.
> JMB
--- the other jmb
|
| 733.70 | | MYCRFT::PARODI | John H. Parodi | Wed May 11 1988 09:46 | 20 |
|
>I do not see any emotional difference between a memorial service and a
>funeral. Aren't cases where there is no recoverable bodies also memorial
>services? I have been to funerals called memorial services and vice
>versa, and have not seen a difference.
The point is that many families do not hold even a memorial service for
a miscarriage while most families do opt for some kind of funeral for
the death of an infant, child, or adult (whether or not the body is
available for the service). Therefore it is clear that there really is
and has been a distinction between a fetus and a human in the minds of
most people.
And that's why many people do not like statements of the form: "A human
is a human from the instant of conception and taking the life of a human
is murder."
That is a matter of opinion and not at all obvious...
JP
|
| 733.71 | (for a discussion of ectopic pregnancy, see 602.*) | MOSAIC::TARBET | | Thu May 12 1988 13:20 | 53 |
|
The following response is from a member of our community who wishes
to remain anonymous at this time.
=maggie
===================================================================
First, I want to explain I am not generally in favor of abortions -
this is my own opinion. I figure it's a woman's choice; it just
doesn't happen to be my choice. I also would never "judge" someone who
had one, it's not my place or my business. So, I've at least explained
how *I* feel about it.
So, after reading all of the replies to 733, I was just wondering how
the rest of you felt about a related question. For all of the
pro-lifers out there, what about an ectopic pregnancy?
Anyway, when a woman is having an ectopic pregnancy, the pregnancy must
be terminated in order to save the woman's life. There is no other
option. Allowed to continue, the fallopian tube will rupture and the
mother will hemorrhage and die. For real. Forever. A lot of women
come too close.
When an ectopic pregnancy is terminated, the fetus is still alive when
the procedure begins, (even tho it is "doomed"), and the fetus ends up
in the bottom of a stainless steel pan, destined for the path lab. The
woman ends up with a BIG scar, mentally and physically, all the pain of
a major abdominal surgery, and more times than not, a lot of guilt.
An ectopic pregnancy is never planned. As a matter of fact, I would
venture to say that most pregnancies that end as an ectopic, were
wanted pregnancies.
What I read in the replies to 733 by the pro-lifers is this: The
taking of a life is the taking of a life.
Should a woman who has had this unfortunate experience more than once
be termed a "multiple murderer?" I mean, it's bad enough to have the
surgery, the dissapointment, the anguish, the grief, the self-doubt,
the self-inflicted "blame", but to be "judged" by others a "murderer"
... well, that's really tough to take ...
Please don't flame me, please be gentle with me, I, unfortunately,
speak from lotsa experience. Four of them. No more of them.
The logical side of me says "Who cares what other people think? They
don't have enough insight." But the human side of me says "Please
don't judge me, I've blamed me enough. Don't call me a murderer; I
didn't want to die, too. I love my husband and the one child we do
have. Instead, comfort us in our losses."
|
| 733.72 | One of us is missreading something | CVG::THOMPSON | Let's move Engineering to Florida | Thu May 12 1988 13:31 | 9 |
| > What I read in the replies to 733 by the pro-lifers is this: The
> taking of a life is the taking of a life.
I missed the reply that said that abortion that was medically necessary
to save a woman's life was wrong. Which one was it? I'm sure it did
not mean it was wrong in a case like this where neither mother *or*
baby have a chance or choice. Please point out the reply I missed.
Alfred
|
| 733.73 | hmmm | GNUVAX::BOBBITT | showtime, Synergy... | Thu May 12 1988 14:55 | 19 |
| re: .68
> Murder is an emotionally charged word, and is generally misapplied
> to abortions with the specific intent of stirring emotion. However,
> technically, murder is the *unlawful* taking of human life. Any
> abortion which is performed within the law is therefore NOT murder.
a very good point. Murder also implies that you want as your absolute
main goal to kill whoever or whatever is being considered, with no
consideration given to any other issues that may surround it. You
cannot murder something that you do not consider to be alive (for those
who do not believe a human life is fully realized at the moment of
conception). Also, some people who have abortions don't want to stop
the baby's life just for the sake of killing something, they simply
realize that having the child may seriously damage their own life
(physically, mentally, emotionally...), and the term murder would imply
much malice aforethought where there may be none.
-the third JMB
|
| 733.74 | | CASV02::AUSTIN | C'mon Eddie, kiss your Aunt Bunny | Thu May 12 1988 15:01 | 35 |
| re .72
I missed the part of the reply in .71 that quoted any reply or replies
saying that "abortion that was medically necessary to save a woman's
life was wrong". Please point out that quote in .71's reply I missed.
I think YOU were missreading something. BTW please correct me if
I am assuming wrong Anon. I think .71 is saying that what she got
of reading all of the replies in 733 by the pro-lifers CAME across
to her as saying "taking a life is taking a life" period! no if
ands or buts.
Anon, I am very sorry about losses.
Tanya
|
| 733.75 | | ASD::HOWER | Helen Hower | Fri May 13 1988 09:08 | 12 |
| further to .71
While the author did not state it explicitly, I believe that
in the case of an ectopic (sp?) pregnancy, not only would the pregnancy
have killed the mother if allowed to continue, but the fetus would
not have survived anyway. It isn't a case of "save the mother OR
save the fetus" (a tough situation of its own!), but one of "save
anyone". Which would seem to make it even more tragic that she
feels that some would brand her as a "murderer" for choosing to live....
Helen
|
| 733.76 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Let's move Engineering to Florida | Fri May 13 1988 12:01 | 23 |
| I understand that the person in .71 was saying that they felt
that the anti-abortion people were saying that taking a life is
taking a life period. The clear (to me) implication, since this
person appears to be dealing with some guilt (externally pushed?)
about abortion in her own case. It is also clear in her case that
these abortions were clearly medically necessary but that she
believed that anti-abortion people were putting her in the same
class as someone who has an abortion just for the sake of birth
control. Am I on the right track so far? My impression is that
.71 said a) "that anti-abortion people said that abortion is
taking a life" b) "that anti-abortion people said that taking
a life is taking a life" c) and that a + b implies that there
are no justifiable reasons for taking a life.
My point was that her assumptions (other then a) are wrong (at least
in the case of the people who have replied to this topic). Further I
was trying to say that anti-abortion people in this note have
explicitly said that abortions required to save a mother's life are a
special case and are not evil things. I know of no anti-abortion
person who disapproves of medically necessary abortions. (regret
perhaps)
Alfred
|