From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: BUSH
Date: 25 Jul 92 15:51:13 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Jul25.031517.859@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>
>I'm not sure what you stand for, but I could never advocate 
>killing a human being because they might grow up to live in 
>poverty. 
> 

Though I'm pro-choice, I agree. So why can't we focus on eliminating
poverty?  Sometimes this whole abortion debate..... oh nevermind.

On second thought.....


	Though I am unwaveringly Pro-Choice, of late I've become
rather frustrated with people of both sides of the abortion debate.
Following the recent Supreme Court rulint both sides have taken to
increased yelling about whether Roe v. Wade should be upheld or
overturned.  Meanwhile, each side ignored some important questions
surrounding the issue.
	
	First, both sides ignore one important question : Why do so
many women believe abortion is the only viable option when facing a
crisis pregnancy? And what can be done to make other options more
attractive and more viable. Nobody likes the idea of abortion (there's
a difference between being Pro-Choice and Pro-Abortions, and almost no
one is pro-abortion). It liek both sides are arguing over a tightrope,
well greased by the Supreme Court and state legislatures, which women
must cross. One side want the rope suspended, and the other side wants
the rope cut, but neither side seems concerned with the net that ought
to be stretched beneath the rope.

	Why aren't more people focusing on ways to make it easier for
women to  have and keep their children?  There are very specific
things that states and local communities can do to make choosing life
a little easier.  First, any pregnant woman needs good prenatal care
to make sure she and the baby are healthy.  Prenatal care should be
availible to all pregnant women regardless of economic or insured
status.  If the state is concerned about infant life and welfare, it
should get interested before the child is born, and provide prenatal
care to mothers who cannot otherwise afford it.

	Once a child is born, it needs health care, and if the sate is
intersted in preserving the child's life, it ought to be interested in
the quality of life once the child is undeniably here. No child should
be without good pediatric care, and the state should provide it if
parents are unable.  Health care is an important part of taking care
of a child, and some women my not opt for abortion if they know that
caring for the child will be made easier.

	Caring for a child also takes time.  In an age of more fluid
parental roles, single parent families, and double income families, it
is time to mandate paid parental leave in the workplace, equally and
to all parents regardless of gender. I say both parents, regardless of
gender because we live in a time when mothers and father in poor and
middle class families have to work to keep the family afloat; equally
and regardless of gender, because the assumption that only a woman can
properly care for a child is outdated and arcane.  

	As we live in economic times that require families to have two
incomes, forcing both parents into the job market, there is an
increased need for childcare.  Again, a state that is interested in
protecting life ought to be interested in the quality of child care as
if effects the quality of life.  Child care shoudl be availible to
those who can't afford it otherwise.

	Like it or not, we live in an age when young women, teenagers,
are becoming mothers.  Many young women have to drop out of school to
care for their children, ending their education and thus effecting
their ability to provide for their children.  Single mothers,
including teenageres, should have access to child care so that they
might educate themselves and make themselves able to provide better
lives for their children.  Remember, the age of long-distance travel
has brought an end to the days when a nearby, extended family could
meet this need, and many teenage mothers have parents who work and
cannot afford to stay at home and care for a child.

	Another method of decreasing the demand for abortion is to
increase the information and access women have concerning birth
control.  A pregnancy that never happens can't become a crisis.
Making sure that anyone who can get pregnant, or who can get someone
else pregnant, has access to birth control ought to be a priority if
abortion demand is to decrease.

	All of the above measures would make it easier for women
tohave and keep their children, or to avoid pregnangy altogether. Yet
these options are ignored by both sides of the issue.  Some, usually
conservatives from the pro-life side, are vocally opposed to some
ideas that might help mothers, such as day-care centers and birth
control counseling in high schools. They oppose these measures for the
same reason they oppose legal abortion : they seek the enforcement of
Judeo-Christian moral code. More than this, they seek to be the
catalyst for a religious revival in this country, a revival of
christian faith and morality.

	However, in opposing measures that would help mothers, and
seeking to make abortion illegal,they are conflicting with their own
goals. Morality can indeed be legislated. However, morality (for
christians) stems out of faith. Where there is not christian
faith,there is no christian morality. Faith can not be legislated.
Therefore some pro-lifers are only succeding in half the battle.
Behavior can be changed through legislation, but faith cannot.

	Some Pro-Lifers will point to the ministries and other
agencies they have built up to help women in crisis pregnancies, and
these efforts are to be lauded. However, it is too little. If abortion
were to become illegal tomorrow, there would not be enough such help
for women in crisis. Many women would be left with nowhere to turn and
no help from anyone. Remember, when a mother suffers, a child suffers.
Wouldn't it be better to work on creating a real system that will be
able to help women and children and offer real options besides
abortion and adoption (It is no easier - emotionally - to give up a
child than it is to terminate a pregnancy), BEFORE taking away another
option? Wouldn't it be better to open a window BEFORE slamming a door?

	On the Pro-Choice side of the debate there is a lot of energy
understandably focused on vigilantly protected the right that has been
law for the last 17 years or so.  However, those on the pro-choice
side run the risk of appearing more pro-abortion than pro-choice. I
don't believe anyone really likes the idea of abortion, and I don't
believe any woman makes that choice lightheartedly. Those on the
pro-choice side would do well to focus some energy on those issues
that would make life easier on women, families, and children.
Admittedly, the pro-choice side is a little better about this than the
pro-life side.

	So why don't people from both sides get together and discuss
these issues, and leave the discussion of abortion out so that we
might discuss other ways of helping women, families, and children?  We
might find that we agree more often than not, and we might actually be
able to make a difference that cannot help but affect the number of
women who seek abortions. We might be able to make life better for
those born, and those yet to be born.




-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre