From: dbn7350@zeus.tamu.edu (NASH, DAVID BENNETT III)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 12 Dec 1992 17:08 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec10.125847.627@gw.syr.ge.com>, cjburke@gw.syr.ge.com writes...
>In article <1992Dec4.102135.2480@wdl.loral.com>, bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
>> In article <168B2E845.VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU>, VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes:

[waiting period for abortions...]

>Hold on here.  Why must we make the assumption that abortion must take
>place in a special clinic?  Why must we have a special location for one
>type of medical procedure?  That is what we are talking about here, as
>I have stated before.  I will grant you that hospitals can be few and
>far between, but there is usually a doctor within *reasonable* distances.

Perhaps in New York, there is a clinic on every corner that is willing
to preform an aborion.  In the state of South Dakota there is only
one facility willing to preform abortions (as of last year).  Traveling 
across an entire state to go to a clinic is certainly not a "*reasonable*
distance.

[Waiting period laws...]

>> What is the reasoning behind waiting periods? Simple: make a woman
>> make two trips to the clinic and the ones who are too poor pay the
>> added expense won't get abortions, and those who do make the extra
>> effort can be targeted by hit-squads of `counselors' while they're
>> waiting.
> 
>WRONG WRONG WRONG!  Because of the media and activists, many of our 
>uneducated, poorer people think their only alternative is abortion.
>Let them hear all of the alternatives (not just the ones that the 
>*AHEM* anti-censorship *AHEM* liberals want them to hear.  
> 
>> 
>> Is that *really* how you want to go about reducing the number of
>> abortions?
>> 
>> #   * Although I wouldn't go as far as requiring parental notification
>> #     for minors, I might be talked into a family notification requirement,
>> #     i.e. grandparents included.
>> 
>> What for?  What kind of abortions were you thinking would be less
>> likely to occur with such a provision, and why do you think *these*
>> abortions are the troublesome ones?
> 
>Again, since we are talking about a MEDICAL procedure, parents of minor
>children have the right to be notified.  All medical proffesionals that
>I know seem to agree that the parents of a minor must be notified when
>they receive minor treatment (I am talking hangnails and hemmorhoids here,
>from my college experience).  Why shouldn't the parents be notified when 
>their child is going to undergo what is essentially outpatient surgery.
> 
>I am not talking morals here, I am talking about established medical ethics.
> 
>> 
>> Here's how you reduce the number of abortions by reducing the demand
>> for abortion:
>> 
>> 	1) Comprehensive sex and reproduction education in the public
>> 	   schools.  Not just the in-out mechanics and the
>> 	   infant-in-three-easy-steps programs we have now -- frank
>> 	   and explicit education about contraception.
>> 
Agreed.
>> 	2) Public funding (augmenting charity) for contraceptive
>> 	   distribution.  Aim at getting condoms, gel, diaphrams, the
>> 	   Pill, etc. into the hands of people who want them, but
>> 	   find them too difficult to acquire.  Make vasectomies,
>> 	   tubal ligations, Norplant and other surgical approaches
>> 	   more available.
Agreed.
>> 
>> 	3) Combine 1) and 2) to get contraceptives into wide use among
>> 	   the youngest sexually active members of society.  As long
>> 	   as we continue to cling to the vestigial notion that making
>> 	   contraception available to unmarried teens encourages
>> 	   promiscuity, sexual immorality and devil worship, we will
>> 	   fail to make the kind of progress we *can* make in reducing
>> 	   the number of abortions performed each year.
Agreed.
> 

>Amazing, isn't it?  Not a single mention of abstinence there.
> 
>(Sorry, old-fashioned idea just kind of slipped through there.)

Exactly.  Old fashioned.
(Before I go on, I must say that I have to make an assumption -- that
most abortions are preformed by 16 - 19 year olds.  I do not actually
know the age distribution for women seeking abortions.  If anyone has
that information, it would be useful.)
I have no idea how old you are, but if you have not been in high
school in a while, sex is quite as rampant as reported in the media,
maybe more so.  A classmate of mine in the fifth grade (1982) recieved
oral sex from a girl his age.  Friends of mine were exploring intercourse
as early as the sixth grade.  Many others I knew were having sex regulary
in high school.  Most of the sexually active males spoke of intercourse
as conquest.  Many of the females spoke of love, marrage, and babies.
I returned to my high school three months after graduating to see a football
game.  Several of my friends were married, and either had a baby, or were
well on their way. (Don't worry, I'm getting to abortion :})
They are barely going to make it, and only then with parental help.

	Abortion was never seen or preformed quite rarely in the past,
but has become a NECESSITY in the current American society.  First,
let's see why it was not needed in the past. 
	Many people discount the effect of puberty and hormones
on a young body.  They believe that if a young person wants to have
intercourse, then they must not be in control of their sexual desires.
Agreed, adults are able to control their desires, but we are not talking
about adults.  We are talking about children in the process of discovering
how to use and control their sexuality.  In 1900, the average age that
people reached puberty was 16 years old.  In 1990, the average age
was 12 years old.  Better nutrition, living contitions, etc., are given
as the cause.  Not only that, but look here -- the average age that
people got married in 1900 was 17 years old.  In 1990, that average
age was 23 years old.  In 1900, then people had to wait all of one year,
on average, to discover the mystery and joy of intercourse.  In 1990, 
though, people are _expected_ to wait out *eleven* years of raging
hormones before performing intercourse.  (If I told YOU that you could
not have intercourse for eleven years, you would likely tell me in various
ways to go f**k off!)
	What about marrying when pregnant?  Many marrages were arranged
by parents or other relatives before the wedding.  The idea that one
got married out of a sense of duty, not love was commonplace.  The 
honeymoon was a time to get to know your mate, their mind and soul, as
well as their body.  The socital cost for divorce was much higher
than today, so that it was rare.  A divorcee was booted out of the church
and lookde upon as a failure.  Since marrying a divorcee was tacit adultry
under Christian religions (and perhaps others, I do not know), the divorcee
was, for all purposes, an outcast.  These ideas alows people to accept 
forced marrage for a pregnancy as the right thing to do.
	If young couples are willing to be married in event of a 
pregnancy, then they must be able to support that child and themselves.
In 1900, a male could get an entry level job that would support him,
his wife, and several children.  He could get this job without having 
to finish high school.  A couple could get a sexual itch, get married,
have children, and get a job that would support them all before age 18.
	Cut to today.  
	No one with only a high school diploma is going to get an entry
level job that can support him, his wife, and a child.  Even if he
takes two jobs, and wife has one, they cannot make it without help.
I know three couples in this very same situation.  They have to get
money from their parents to buy clothes for their child.

	You cannot assualt the teens of today and say that they are
hedonistic and immoral.  You cannot expect them to do as their grand-
parents did, because it is impossible.  The opportunities available
to 18 year olds are almost non-existent.  Do not ask them not to have
sex before marrige, just because you could control yourself.  You
did not have to wait nearly as long.
	Do you want proof of this idea?  Look at the rapid increase
of abortion rates in this country since WWII.  In the fifties and 
sixties, high school graduation rates skyrocketed, and the better
conditions that the teens lived in lowered the age of the beginning
of puberty.  Illegal abortions killed thousands of teenage women
because they understood the economic  and social realities.  1) If 
they are pregnant, they have to get married whether they love the
man or not.  By the 1960's this was unacceptable to many.  2)  Since
divorce was becomming more prevalent, there was much less of a social
stigma to prevent the male from divorcing and leaving her to raise
the child on her own.  They also knew that sexism would prevent them
from ever making enough money on their own to raise the child.  3)  If
the man stayed, her life would still be miserable anyway.  Her mate
would never make enough money, because the buisness BA was becomming
the only way up in a company.  If he did not have it, they would
definately have to do without. 
	Abortion, and to a greater extent contraceptives and sexual 
education, has become a necessity in our present society.  The only
ways to reduce the number of abortions is to: 1) Have the young people
of this country learn how to effectively use contraceptives.  Many
young people still think that they can have intercourss with no 
consequences.  This idea must be changed.  2)  Give young people
enough oppoutunities that if they decide to get married when they 
are pregnant, they will make enough money to raise the child.  If 
the couple has enough reasons _not_ to get married, they will not,
and probably seek an abortion.  
	This will not go away, no matter how much praying is done.
Only if the situations that the youth of America are living under
are changed, will the situation become better.

dbn3.
-- bow down before the one you serve, you're going to get what you deserve. NIN
-- an enemy of the Ronald Reagan Republicans.          dbn7350@zeus.tamu.edu  
-- the Irony is Delicious. . . . I pay Texas A&M  -- I do not speak for them.
<EOF>

(Nothing after, I just have to type more than what I am responding to...:}
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh