From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:59:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.083200.5334@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>In article <1dq3b1INNj56@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue) writes:
>>
>>>Also, why do you assume that the
>>>woman is more important than the "defined" life inside her?
>>
>>Because I am an adult woman, and I *know* I am more important than
>>an unborn foetus.
>>
>>							--  Michal 
>
>This smells like an opinion...  It looks like an opinion.  Hmmmm...

Opinions are as good as the facts that back them up (simplpe Catholic
logic). Let's check out your opinions...

>
>Gosh, I wish the world was as black and white as you *know*.  Ok, you
>took a vote and you won over an unborn foetus.  Now, let's change the
>players and employ a special trait where we can speculate on what
>happens in the future and vote again.
>
>	Mother X                vs.            Baby X'
>	========                               =========
>
>In this corner, weighing 140 pounds is Matilda Mother.  Matilda dropped
>out of school at age 14 and hit the streets.  Besides several
>prostitution and drug convictions in her life, she is also an alcohol
>abuser and is sometimes violent to the point of doing physical damage.
>She will never accomplish anything of real value in her life, although
>she will traumatize several people and have mostly a negative impact on
>everyone with which she deals.  She will live to the ripe old age of 72
>when she contracts stomach cancer and dies.

Obviously, a very disturbed human being. Let's move on to the Baby...
>
>In this corner, weighing 4 ounces, is Baby Blue.  Baby Blue (who, if
>she lives) is genetically viable, and is genetically capable of being a
>normal human being if raised in the proper environment.  If Baby Blue
>had been put up for adoption, the adopting couple would have been Dr.
>and Mr.  Smith.  The Smiths would have provided a stable and nurturing
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>environment, as well as sparked a keen interest in medicine and science
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in Baby Blue (whom they would have named Chelsea).  Chelsea Smith,
>through her active research in human genome mapping, would have
>designed a series of attack virii that would have fought off
>each of the many strains of the HIV virii.  In effect, a cure for
>AIDS.  As a result of her work and many publications, target virii were
>designed to attack mutant cancer cells.  Within 10 years of her attack
>virii research, a cure for the common cold was even created.  However,
							       ^^^^^^^
>because her mother, Matilda, was given the right to abort her at 11
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>weeks of the pregnancy, Chelsea Smith was never born, and the designer
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>virii research was delayed for another 43 years, during which time an
>additional 148 million people died of AIDS related complications and 
>700 million died of cancers that would have lived full lives if Chelsea had
>only been born.

I see two key statements in there. The first is that the Smiths would have
raised Baby Blue to be a good science student. The second is that the
reason none of these things happen is because this singluar, specific baby
was never born.

If the Smiths are responsible for Baby's science achievements because of
her environment, then by impliction it would *not* have to be the singular,
specific baby in this example which the Smiths must raise to make all these
achievements. You could take into account inborn tendencies towards
science, but then this implies that these tendencies are genetic. Science
has demonstrated that genetics play a relatively minor role in what someone
may or may not achieve.

I should also point out a couple of other things, which demonstrate that
this nice model we've set up does not always work...

1) Given Matilda's charicter as a lower-class criminal and drug abuser,
it is quite possible that Matilda has engaged in drug behavior that would
severely damage her fetus in the womb. Once Chelsea is born, what is the
likelihood that she will be brain damaged or a drug addict? This happens an
awful lot, you know. Friends of mine were taking prescription medicine  
*before they knew they were pregnant* and ended up causing irreparable
damage to the developing brain, effectively destroying any chance the
fetus had for a full, productive life. Aborting the fetus was merely
finishing what the medicine had already done.

2) Given Matilda's charicter, it's likely that she would keep the baby
(once born) to get an increase in welfare benefits. Your hypothesis
states that Matilda causes misery for whoever she deals with. This would
lead to the assumption that she would not be a nuturing mother for
Chelsea. Therefore, it is also somewhat likely that even if born, the
baby in this example will never accomplish what you state she will.

3) Given the civil service of many states, including Illinois, it is
very likely that even if the civil service took Cheelsea away from 
Matilda and placed her with the Smiths, the Smiths would have a very
hard time adopting her because of the very strict foster care and adoption
rules. If the Smiths are too religious or not religious enough, or adopt
a non-mainstream religion, Chelsea goes back to the orphanage and never
gets the nurturing the Smiths would provide. The same thing goes for
a lot of similar small matters such as political involvement, or
associates. Also, suppose the Smiths are a black family and Chelsea is
white. The Smiths would never come close to Chelsea, period, because
of the same-race policy many states enforce in adoptions. I could go on.
The point is, there are lots of families willing to adopt, yes. But there
are very few of them which states consider appropriate for adoption, and
LOTS OF CHILDREN WAITING TO BE ADOPTED ALREADY.

4) Here is the tragic part- even if the Smiths get a chance to adopt Chelsea,
if Matilda wants her back, in many states  the civil service will remove
Chelsea from the Smiths and give her to Matilda. The Smiths will not be
able to sue the Civil Service for custody because of legal precedents saying
that the Civil Service has every right to do this.

>
>Got it, yet, Michal?  It's not as black and white as Mother Teresa vs.
>the creature from the black lagoon.  It's a difficult decision for us
>to make, and there is no absolutely right choice and there is no
>absolutely wrong choice.  It involves many different values,
>intellectual values, societal values, biological values.  That's why it
>is a hotly debated issue.  That's why so many people waffle around
>until they find a position that they are happy with intellectually--and
>then they still change their minds.

My mind is made up. Until the adoption laws change and the economy stablizes,
I cannot in good faith abandon abortion rights.

Lost Boy

**********************************************************************
* You know that the Antiabortion side is radical when they object to *
* bands like Cannibal Corpse and then stick feti on their wall.      *
*                                         -Karen Uru                 *
**********************************************************************
* Ya ever notice that people who are against abortion are people you *
* wouldn't want to f*** anyway?                                      *
*                                         -George Carlin             *
**********************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity