From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re:poll results:fyi
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:19:05 GMT
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <MeqmyxC00VpZEEdl5B@andrew.cmu.edu>, Patrick Pearse Gallagher <pg23+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>	One thing that's always puzzled me about the pro-choice movement.  So
>many seem to say,' I'm pro-choice, but I'm anti-abortion.  Or, I wish
>there weren't so many abortions, but I'm not going to violate a woman's
>right to choose.  It's odd, because I know that if I didn't believe that
>a fetus was being killed, I would be all for abortions.  It  would help
>economically, environmentally, etc.  If abortion is merely a removal of
>unviable tissue, why are you personally against it.  Why would you make
>sure a woman explores all other options first and have an abortion as a
>last resort?  It seems to me that if you're not a supporter of fetal
>rights, abortion should be the best option in nearly all cases of
>unwanted pregnancies.

Ah, a newbie to this discussion...We've gone over this before here in
not not-too-distant past.  I guess we'll do it again...

I'll state *my* view and give reasons:
  "I'm pro-choice, but I think there are too many abortions".  I'd probably
allow the liberal (sorry, dirty word) interpretation of that second clause
as "I'm anti-abortion".  My reasoning is that abortion is a medical
procedure and is "intrusive"; while contraceptives (in general) are
*less* intrusive and thus (in most cases) safer and have fewer harmful
side effects.  Abortion IS a safe, effective and cost effective *medical* 
procedure and thus people should have that option.  I feel that it is 
NO one elses business (individuals or governments) to prevents others
from making that legitimate choice; thus "I'm pro-choice".

Let me give an analogy:  I think there are too many cases of lung cancer
in this country, but I support a person's choice to have surgery to correct
that problem.  Many of the cases of lung cancer are preventable (smoking).
The underlying problem is NOT abortion but too many unwanted
pregnancies and the apparent contridiction comes about because many were
*preventable* and the procedure is (generally) medically *more* intrusive
then the alternatives (contraceptives).  So if the people who really 
object to the total number of abortions on a "moral" stance truely wished
to reduce the number they would indeed work on the underlying problem
of unwanted/unplanned pregnancy.  But instead these same "pro-life" groups,
as a general rule, also object to pregnancy *planning/contraceptives*
and sex education.  I'm sure Planned Parenthood would be overjoyed to see 
an increase in the use of contraceptives with a corresponding decrease in 
the number of abortions, assuming the option of abortion was still
available to those who desired it (whatever their reasons).

I am not "anti-abortion" in the moral jihad sense of wanting to make that
choice for others.

>	RE:  Pro-abort bias in WNC.  I agree that there is a big pro-abortion
>bias throughout the country.  The numbers are deflated in DC for the big
>marches in January and pumped up for the pro-choicers.    I also see it
>here in Pittsburgh.

I've seen that claimed before; without justification.  Please give proof!
Just because the news is not to your liking doesn't mean there is a bias.
(There was something on this in this week's Time mag. about the myth of
liberal bias in the media...)  Sorry, but you can yell "bias" all you
want but unless somehow you can substantiate it (with something acceptable
to both sides) your claim comes across as merely whining over "sour grapes"
of the situation.  I see also here that YOUR bias comes out when you
talk about "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice".  Very few (with one
or two notable exceptions) in this group are "pro-abortion" but a good
number of them do support a woman's perogative to choose.

>---Patrick

-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity