From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:49:53 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep10.002351.12480@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> In article <1992Sep9.200608.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep9.213953.8710@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>>  
>>> One thing about our health care system.  It perhaps is true that we
>>> excel at providing exotic, highly technical medicine, but we are
>>> closer to the bottom among industrial nations in, say, infant mortality,
>>                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> preventive care, and so on.  Preventing an illness before it gets
>>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> serious is generally cheaper, and our medical system tends not to
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> favor this approach to treating patients.  Doctors make more money
>>> as specialists, treating the exotic.
>>> 
>>     What you say about about the tragedy of infant mortality in 
>>the US is true.  The statistic would be even worse if you include
>>the 1.3 million abortions performed each year in the US.  We could
>>then modify one of your sentences to read: 
>>
>>     Preventing an unwanted pregnancy by birth control is generally
>>     cheaper (in monetary and psychological terms) than having 
>>     an abortion...
>>
>>So, I do agree with you -- responsible, preventative "medicine" 
>>should be preferred over reactionary "treatment."
> 
> OK, I agree.  There are too many abortions.  You'll find many
> pro-choice people who will agree, also.
> 
> So, what has the Bush Administration done to promote sex ed,
> distribution of birth control, etc?
> 
     I think you have just illustrated the fundamental difference
between conservatives and liberals.  "Too many abortions" falls
under the category of a social problem in the US (I think we both
agree?).  *You* look to Washington to solve this social problem
while *I* believe this problem is too complex for government to
solve.  I say it is complex because it includes -- do I dare
say it -- morality.  (Yes, I know -- the only thing immoral
is to talk about morality.)  For what other reason can anyone 
claim that "too many abortions" occur?  
     The strongest mechanism by which the federal government
can control our lives is the tax code.  That is why they 
introduce 'sin taxes' for cigarettes, alcohol, etc. -- to 
try to discourage their use.  In my opinion, the only way
Washington could *seriously* discourage abortions would be by
introducing a high tax on an abortion.  This, obviously, would
be dangerous to mothers whose lives are on the line; therefore
it is ridiculous to implement.  This leads to another reason why 
the problem is complex -- abortions are obtained for such
a wide variety of reasons.  Here is what a survey of 1,900
women by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (a division of
Planned Parenthood) found regarding the breakdown of abortion
motivations:

     Birth control or social reasons :  93%
     Mother's health                 :   3%
     Baby health problem             :   3%
     Rape or incest                  :   1%

The breakdown of the 93% for birth control reasons was as follows:

     Child might change their life : 16%
     Not ready for responsibility  : 21%
     Can't afford baby             : 21%
     Relationship problem          : 12%
     Not mature enough             : 11%
     No more children wanted       :  8%
     Other                         :  4%

     From this chart, it is apparent that the problem is one where
the *individual* must take personal responsibility.  If you
think Clinton's new convenant will solve this problem, you have
more faith than I.

     Cary Perttunen

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5025 alt.news-media:1266 alt.politics.elections:12905 alt.politics.bush:4811