From: pearsodc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Douglas C. Pearson)
Subject: Re: Behavior-related Medical Conditions
Reply-To: pearsodc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Douglas C. Pearson)
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:48:09 GMT

Franklin Suo writes
> 
> Millions of people would outlaw abortion as a medical remedy for 
> pregnancy, yet I doubt that many people would deny treatment to smokers 
> with lung cancer, to hi-fiber-cereal-haters with colon cancer, or to 
> motorcyclists who tried to head-butt the side of a tractor trailer at 60 
> MPH. Why the double standard here?
> 
Double standard?  What double standard?  I don't see no stinkin' double  
standard!!!

What you are trying to do is equate pregnancy - the creation of life - one  
of the most beautiful things in all of creation - to an INJURY or a  
ILLNESS.  Pregnancy _is_not_ an illness!  It is the creation of a life!   
That life should be protected!

> If we want to make medical care available to people, (regardless of the
> mechanism), we simply have to accept that many of the people who are in 
> need of care will have engaged in behaviors which either should've been 
> avoided, or of which we might not approve. 
> 
> We generally accept that the best way to reduce the incidence of lung 
> cancer is not to ban doctors from treating those patients, but to reduce 
> the ammount of tobacco use. This is accomplished through substantive 
> education, i.e. not just telling people that smoking is bad for you, but 
> by presenting data showing why it's bad for you, explaining those data, 
> and by offering alternatives to that behavior, such as Quit-Smoking 
> Clinics and other forms of voluntary intervention.
> 
So what you're telling me is that abortion is a medical treatment aimed at  
ending a disease.  This once again assumes that pregnancy is an illness.
Pardon my blatant disregard for the King's English - 

PREGNANCY AIN'T NO DAD-GUM DISEASE!
ABORTION AIN'T NO DAD-GUM CURE!

Even a fair number of pro-choice folk out there would agree with me when I  
say that ABORTION ENDS A POTENTIAL LIFE.  Now, the legitimate question to  
ask here is "what constitutes a life?  Is a fetus alive after it is  
conceived, after 3 months of pregnancy, when?"  I happen to take the view  
that life begins at conception, but I can understand, if not accept, where  
someone would be of the opinion that you can't call a small group of cells  
a human life.  I CANNOT understand someone calling a fetus a 'tumor',  
which, Mr. Suo, you are in effect doing.

Consider the inherent danger in what you are saying, Mr. Suo.  What if  
your parents had considered you a tumor and had your mother undergo a  
simple medical procedure for your elimination?  In fact, what if all  
children were considered tumors and were aborted?  The human race wouldn't  
last very long, would it?

Of course, this isn't what you meant.  But tumors of the lung don't tend  
to hang around very long, either.

Chuck Pearson
pearsodc@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

'he could have been thrown away before he had the chance to say
 hey world, i am here and i have something to give
 hey world, i'm alive and i am wanting to live'            -Petra