From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: A (Tentative) Position for Debate
Organization: Encore Computer
	<1992Apr9.030725.2415@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:23:27


	Firstly, let me apologize for the tone of both this and the other
posts which I made yesterday. I was tired, and I don't think that I was 
really capable of stringing two words together coherently, let alone two
sentences. I was also feeling a little bitter, and I think my posts reflected
that. Second, may I make a slight request to Bill (and everyone else) and
suggest that you try and keep your line length to a few characters less than
eighty? Eighty, or even seventy-nine characters lines tend to wrap when
they are followed up to, and while it's not a problem to me, it makes it
easier for other to read.

In article <1992Apr9.030725.2415@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> 
rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres) writes:

   [ Some Discussion Deleted ]
>>
>>    Wonderful and lalala. If the conditions of society could be changed
>>so that there was plenty of food everywhere, no one would be hungry. Sorry
>>to sound a little snotty, but but you seem to be making a moral judgement
>>that any sort of abortion is a bad thing, and you don't provide any basis
>>for that argument. Why is a first trimester abortion bad?
>>
>>>--Bill
>>>Committed to faith in God
>>>Searching for answers to difficult questions
>>
>>John

>John, I'm disappointed.  Firstly, I do not mean to state that abortion should 
>be illegal is the life of the woman is threatened by abortion; ALL surgery is, 
>to some extent, life threatening.  This is a Medical decision, not a legal 
>decision, and should be handled on a case-by-case basis.  Birthing should not 
>be made illegal on the same principles.  You are trying (unsuccesfully) to draw
>me into a reductio ad absurdum, which I will not buy.

	No, I was not. You were questioning abortions that threatened the life
of the mother, and I merely pointed out that you should be willing to question
births that threatened the life of the mother. 

----included from original article----

>-Abortion should remain legal in all other situations where the procedure does
>not seriously threaten or jeapordize the health of the woman involved.  This
>position could be altered if the following conditions are met:

----end inclusion----

	The implication I read here was that abortion should be *illegal* if
the woman's life is threatened by the procedure. Granted, you do not state
that explicitly, but why else include that statement? Again, I realize that
this is only my interpretation of what you said.

>I am perfectly willing to let the woman decide what's best for her; if you read
>carefully, that was the original position: pro-choice.  The conditions I set 
>are not meant to be legal ones; I believe (and this is taken on faith, with no 
>evidence to back it up) that if many of the conditions that push women towards 
>abortions are taken away, so will the demand for them.  I may be wrong.

	What, so I can't disagree with you, just because you're pro-choice? :-)
So long as those conditions are personal, and not legislated, I am happy with
them. But I think (hope) you understood that. 

>It is NOT safer to have an abortion than to carry a pregnancy to term, provide 
>the woman has access to good medical care all along the way (including before 
>she becomes pregnant).  I suspect that figures that state otherwise are 
>reflecting the sad state of medical care to poor, single women in this country.

	Uh, I'm not entirely sure about that, Bill. *All* pregnancies have
some sort of adverse effect upon the woman. Said ill effect can be lessened
by proper pre-natal care, but it still exists. I don't know a whole lot about
the ill effects of having an abortion, but I believe that a first trimester
abortion is a *lot* less damaging than carrying to term. Can somebody who
knows provide further info?

>I am uncomfortable with abortion, not only because it is an invasive medical 
>procedure, but also because I have not been convinced either way that the 
>removal of a fetus is a moral wrong or not.  It may be that a fetus has a soul 
>(not a proveable point, but a possible one); it may be that the removal from 
>the world of that potential life represents a wrong.  Who can say for sure?  I 
>am also cognizant of the wrongs committed against women who might be forced to 
>have babies that they cannot care for, and this is why I support pro-choice.

	Good enough, for now.

>Finally, I am disappointed at your general willingness to discard large 
>portions of an argument with "wonderful and lalala".  I have encountered a 
>great deal of cynicism, and I have found it universally to be of little use.  
>Hunger and poverty are HUGE problems, and are closely tied to abortion, since 
>it is the poor who get many of the abortions, and who often stand to be the 
>most strongly effected (usually for the worse) by change.  My willingness to 
>entertain the notion that the poor can be adequately fed, housed and cared for 
>is a part of my position because, in my view, it is part of the problem.  Your 
>response is not what I would view as constructive discussion.

	You say you'd like to reduce the demand for abortions. I say 
"wonderful and lalala". Why? You're in favor of taking steps to improve
the quality of life for the poor. That's wonderful. I wish there were more
people like you in this world. You're doing it because you want to reduce
the demand for abortion. That's lalala. I don't see abortion as an
inherently evil thing. As such, I don't see any need to reduce the demand.
You're making a moral judgement, even if your intentions and results
are good.

	Why am I opposed to saying "reduce the demand for abortions"? In
a perfect society, where everyone was equally cared for and where no one
was starving, I would still support the right to have an abortion. Abortion
should not be linked to economics. Abortion is about a person's right to
choose what happens to his/her body. If you do relate the two, you open the
door to statements like "Well, you're well off. You can support a child.
You can't have an abortion." 

	Wonderful and lalala. I'm dismissing the hungry and the poor as 
IRRELEVANT to the abortion question. Perhaps being hungry and poor is a good
reason to have an abortion. Perhaps the poor are getting many abortions. That
does little to affect the question of whether an abortion should be legal.
Would you deny an abortion to a woman because she is rich? I said "wonderful
and lalala" because the question of a woman's right to choose should exist
regardless of her economic status.

	Support improved health care, better education, and a higher standard
of living because it may be a good thing to care for other people. Don't
support them because you want to reduce the number of abortions.

>Let's keep talking.

	Let's.

>--Bill
>Committed to faith in God

John
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion