From: kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SIMPLE ANSWER
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:24:05 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <4efqWEC00iUx42F1NT@andrew.cmu.edu> ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Erik Karl Witte) writes:
>Notes on a few disingenuous arguments from Mark Ira Kaufman:
>
>1.  The woman with limited financial resources should have spent them on
>contraception.  A condom costs 25 cents, maybe 50 at an expensive gas
>station.

What if it fails?  Strain her resources more with costs of prenatal care
and an unwanted child?

>2.  Okay, you guessed it.  The Pennsylvania legislature just wanted to
>get poor women.  That's the goal of all of us in life.  COME ON!  The
>intent of the law, and the effect of the law, is to place restrictions
>on abortion.

The effect of the law is worse on poor women. Yes, 24 hours is 24 hours.
And for a woman who lives in an urban area with a clinic/can get more than
one day off work, 24 hours is arguably not a huge deal, though I think it's
insulting and it's certainly a hassle. But, as Mark originally said, if a
poor woman has to travel several hours, and pay to stay overnight if a
waiting period is imposed, and either bring her children or arrange for
someone to watch them while she's gone, I don't know how you can say that
this law doesn't hurt her more than her urban counterpart.

>3.  All the picture tell how far through the pregnancy the fetus was.  A
>woman knows how far in her own pregnancy she was and can make her own
>assumptions.  The pictures show that there really is something alive
>inside of her, and give her an idea of what it is.

You can't have it both ways. If "a woman knows how far in her own pregnancy
she was and can make her own assumptions," then why show her pictures?
Presumably if she has all this information, she doesn't need to be further
told what an abortion is to make up her mind. If she does NOT know how
far along she is, I don't believe that it's ethical for a doctor to show
her pictures of an 8-month fetus and say that that is what the abortion will
kill.

>If you take your point of view, every law and every regulation and every
>suggestion anyone has every passed or made is a slap at poor people. 
>Stop dodging the issue.  Nothing can ever be totally equitable, but
>that's the price you pay for living in a free society.

I don't see how this makes every law a "slap at poor people." Laws, against
murder for example, don't discriminate in this way. Now, whether a rich person
can afford a better lawyer and get acquitted is another matter, and I do
think our "justice" system does discriminate against the poor (and lower middle
class).

>The simple fact is, nobody has to have an abortion.

I don't think there is anything "simple" about this debate. If you mean that
no one is legally compelled to have an abortion in the U.S., you're correct.
But in terms of the phrase "doing what one has to do," I'd say there are
situations in which there is no better alternative available than abortion.

>There are alternatives all along
>the way, starting even before conception with the purchase of a condom
>or a spermicidal jelly or anything else.

Again, what if they fail?  What if they weren't used while there was still
a chance?  Pregnancy as punishment for stupidity, carelessness, product
liability?  I just don't think that's a good idea.

-- 
 +==========================+================================================+
 |Kristy Patterson          | Nothing really rocks, and nothing really rolls,|
 |kristyp@mac.dartmouth.edu | & nothing's ever worth the cost.      -Meatloaf|
 +==========================+=================================Bat Out of Hell+
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.rape