From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 21:53:33 GMT

In article <1a082pINN5n8@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.191920.16436@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <19tls2INNgfv@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>I sense, Adrienne, that you dehumanize the unborn and that abortion, is
>>indeed, justified.  
>
>I think abortion is indeed justified when a woman decides for herself that
>abortion is indeed justified.  What that does with your speculation about
>my impressions of the humanity or lack thereof of fetuses escapes me.
>

I was merely putting forward the general impression I got from your last
post.  In a way, it was like saying "You said ________, right?"  Based on
your response, I do get at least a partial yes on it.

To many people, justifying abortion is like justifying murder.  What we
sometimes do (yes, I am guilty of it too) is to rationalize the things we
do and the things we fight for even when somewhere back there, we sense
and feel that it is wrong.  But eventually, after a long period of time,
it becomes ingrained in us and it seems to be the right thing to do.  When
this happens to me, it sometimes takes a friend, a relative, a teacher to
point this out to me.


>>But why do our children have to suffer?  Yes, I know you would say: "But
>>that child will suffer if he/she is made to live on this earth."
>
>Yours don't have to, unless you provide them cause.  I don't know of anybody
>who is stepping into *your* life and attempting to make decisions for *you*,
>though, please, correct me if I'm off base here.
>
>Further, you don't know what I would say.  Since I haven't had the slightest
>problem in the last 7 years in saying things for myself, I would appreciate 
>it if you would refrain from making up stupid, pointless text and attributing
>it to me, thank you.

Umh.  I believe there is a slight misunderstanding.  I should have separated
the two paragraphs a little farther apart.  The "you"s mentioned were
not as direct as you think.

Also, maybe I should have said "you might say" or something to that extent.
I tried my best to summarize your response into an easier to handle form.

>
>>We assume too much when we think that abortion would save that child
>>from suffering and misery.
>
>Who's "we", white man?
>
>(I'm getting awfully tired of that particular phrase......)
>
>Nobody in this exchange so far has made this 'assumption' except you in
>your spurious attempt to set up a straw man, attribute it to me, and then
>knock it back down again.  Spare us all the exercise.
>

Well, first of all, the impression I got from one of your posts/responses
involved having an abortion because you might not be able to support it
vs. having a baby later (and thus, aborting the child now) at a time
when you can support it.  This implies that the situation the parent(s)
is/are in would really affect whether the unborn is to be aborted or not.
Also, had the child been born, he/she would be in a situation which he/she
might not particularly like.  

It is not your assumption (necessarily) but it certainly can be an 
assumption, nevertheless.  Again, I have to be able to summarize an idea
into an easier to handle form to see where I am coming from.

>>>To say no to one now is not to forever say no.  To say no to one now may
>>>be to pave the way for a better life for more than one later.
>>Why will the next child be any more special than the one today?  Why do
>>some of our children live while others, well...   
>
>Will it be any less?
>
>The fact of the matter is that MANY people have some idea of how many
>kids they will have.  Some have that many, some have more and some have
>fewer.  That one fetus was aborted, while another fetus spontaneously
>aborted doesn't seem all that terribly tragic to me:  it's the way hte
>human animal works.  Fetuses *are* renewable in most cases, after all.

Maybe it is because our perceptions of the unborn are different.  When you
say renewable, you mean to say Joe can easily replace Sarah.  But once 
Sarah is aborted, you will most likely never ever have another Sarah with
the same facial characteristics, hair color, innate ability, etc. etc. etc.
Sarah is gone forever.  When you let Joe live, great.  But Joe is definitely
not Sarah and never can be.  Sarah was "sacrificed" for Joe.  

But do Sarah and Joe have any difference in value?  I don't really think
so.  "Choosing" one to live and one to die is certainly a terrible decision.
In the words of Rodney King, "Why can't we all live together?" (or something
to that extent.)

>Karen was expressing her dismay at aborting this particular fetus. 

I know your post was in response to Karen, but it would be nice if we try
to keep her out of this discussion.  She has enough to worry about.  

> I
>merely pointed out that there are other perspectives.  She could greive
>for this one -- and have another one later on -- or she could have had
>this one -- and NOT had another one later on.  In *either* case, she would
>only have known and loved one child.  Why is one considered a tragedy by
>people, but the other is not?  *I* believe it is because the first case
>isn't a tragedy, either.
>
See the above.

>>I hate thinking that children are "chosen."  That one child is worth more
>>than any other child.  All humans are special.  The circumstances (not
>>directly pertaining to the immediate "health" of the mother.)  should not
>>change the value of a child.
>
>You're kidding.  "I hate thinking that children are 'chosen'?"  Do you 
>prefer thinking children are accidenta

What I mean by chosen is that first you have Sarah in the womb.  Do you
keep or let her live?  Then later, you have Mark.  Do you let him live
or abort his life?  It goes to a point where those who are living become
the chosen few, while those who are aborted become the "rejected."  I find
it terrible to have to reject our children violently via abortion.

>
>"That one child is worth more than any other child?" vs. "The circumstances...
>should not change the value of a child."
>
>But you just decided it was worth *more* than her other children!!!! How
>insensitive (and just plain foolish!) can you get?!?!?

I DID NOT say this.  You misinterpreted it.  I said:
"I hate thinking children are 'chosen.'  That one child is worth more
than any other child."

Pardon me for writing a run-on sentence.  The second sentence WAS a 
run-on sentence.  Perhaps it should have been written to this effect:
"I hate thinking children are 'chosen,' where one child becomes worth more
than another child."

See the difference?  BTW, I tried reading what I said another way, and
to my surprise, my supposed run-on sentence could have been thought of
as being a proper sentence.  Pardon me.

>
>I don't think this came out saying what it is you mean to say!
>
See my above comment.

>>>I think it would be harder to have a wanted child and watch it dwindle
>>>because I couldn't provide for it, than to wait for my wanted child and
>>>be able to give it everything.
>>See my above comments.
>
>
>I dunno about you, Martin, but I'd rather see my children thrive than 
>fail.  

I agree completely!  But I don't like to "reject" violently some of my
children to make the others succeed.  How sure are we that a sibling
won't have a profound positive impact on that child.  I'm sure people
all over the place have at least one experience where a sibling has
helped them out and affected them in positive ways.

>If that means I wait for a year or two, then I wait.  

Waiting a year or two is fine.  But if the end (having no children
within two years) is achieved via abortion (the means), then I do 
have some qualms and many other people too.  And even those who have had
abortions, way back in their mind (it may be buried very deeply though),
may feel that something unnatural and fatal was performed.

>If it makes
>me a selfish bitch to want my children to survive, and survive well, then
>so be it.
>

This does echo the "solving misery, pain and suffering of children
via abortion" vs. "letting our children live and have them possibly
suffer and fail."


>Adrienne Regard
>


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc