From: burkhardt@FORCE.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM ()
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Reply-To: burkhardt@FORCE.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM ()
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California 
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 15:55:19 GMT


In article <oem7ddi00WB51DRh8G@andrew.cmu.edu>, ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz) writes:
>Path: iscnvx!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!stanford.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!ag1v+
>From: ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz)
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh
>Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
>Message-ID: <oem7ddi00WB51DRh8G@andrew.cmu.edu>
>Date: 29 Sep 92 15:46:49 GMT
>Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
>Lines: 44
>In-Reply-To: <0pjzy9h@rpi.edu>
>
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.sex: 29-Sep-92 Re: rights and responsibili..
>by rocker@aix.rpi.edu 
>> To whit, it is incredibly arrogant, as well as wrong, for you to
>> dismiss the very real physical and emotional risks of pregnancy
>> as merely inconvenient.
>
>This is a common arguement. Why is it that often people forget the 
>'very real physical and emotional risks of' abortion?
>
>Having one or more abortions has the possibility of causing women
>(especially young women) to become infertile and have multiple mis-
>carraiges (sp?) in later life. Why is it that many pro-choicers
>argue for sex education, but education about abortions risks isn't
>considered as important?  I'm not saying that this is the way you
>feel. But it seems to simply be neglected by the pro-choice pamphlets
>and information. If they're *really* pro-choice, why doesn't their
>agenda include this type of education? If it's only through education
>that people can make 'responsible' choices, then why is the most 
>important part of the information, the risks of the abortion, left
>out, ignored and neglected.
>
>> Defense?  Against what?  I am simply saying it is arrogant (as well
>> as stupid) for you to comment on the rigors of pregnancy, never
>> having been pregnant yourself.
>
>To use a common arguement here, then I can say, that it is arrogant
>for anyone not in the military to have an opinion on women in combat,
>since they've never endured the rigors of military training. And who
>would this include? Many of our congressmen.
>
>I don't think this is an accurate arguement. Firstly, I don't recall
>any of Bruce's comments being specifically on the 'rigors' of pregnancy.
>Secondly, it's possible to get a small understanding from reading on
>the subject, and Bruce might have had the experience of being in the
>delivery room with his wife. We don't know that. How can you say his
>statements are in arrogance when he might have experiences and knowledge.
>You have no way of knowing.
>
>There are many things that we all have opinions on without having 
>experienced them, or having much knowledge on the topic. Using the
>above argument would invalidate most of our opinions and let us 
>simply be lambs led to a slaughter.
>
>ag
>
 
The point about "very real physical and emotional risks of' abortion"
was very well said Andrea.  In the 70's I can remember planned parenthood
trying to sell the point that Pro-Choice was simply an educational matter
about trying to avoid conception via the pill, IUD's... not about abortion.
What Pro-Choice is practicing now is "Limited Choice" without full discloser
of all the choices.