From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de ()
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 11:18:34 GMT

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes:
: <whisper>  Guess what.  What if it turns out that there IS
: no such thing as a "just war"?  What if, actually, EVERY
: WAR _IS_ WRONG?  Boy, I guess Schwartzkopf will just be in
: a WORLD of shit, huh?

Yes, he would.  What's your point?

: >Nevertheless, it is devoutly to be wished that people
: >who think that abortion is always "over and done with" are
: >not on the front line counselling women who are considering
: >abortion.  Wouldn't you say?    
: 
: Why would anyone say this?  Do you want people who have 
: serious DOUBTS about abortion counseling women?  Why is
: this any better?  So that we can be sure that the counselor
: communicates his/her moral spin on the issue, thus CAUSING
: guilt where none may otherwise have existed?

Everybody has a moral spin on abortion.  Even someone who agrees with
you - even *you*, believe it or not.  Thus a counsellor, even a very
good one, cannot help but communicate their "own moral spin". But
a counsellor who offers the opinion that abortion is *always* over and 
done with, and for this reason alone much easier to face than (say) adoption,
is not communicating a moral spin, they're communicating misinformation.  
I'd say that that does nobody any favours.
 

: >Safe, legal, early and *rare*
: >(approximately the original posters .sig, from memory) is not 
: >an unreasonable manifesto.
: 
: It's reasonable if the reason that it's rare is because there
: are virtually no unwanted pregnancies, due to some Super 
: Contraceptive not yet available.  It's not reasonable if the
: reason it's rare is because women who _want_ abortions are
: routinely intimidated into carrying to term.

Agreed on the first point.   Everyone (I hope - dangerous to generalise!)
would prefer that there were no unwanted pregnancies, and that the "choice" 
did not have to arise.

The second point sounds like you would not allow a society to put any 
limits whatsoever on abortion.  I think it's perfectly reasonable that 
society, for whatever reason,  can place such limits if they so wish, or 
none if they so wish.  Remember that women are involved in that process
of setting or tearing down limits.  

There are plenty of precedents for society not letting people do what 
they _want_ to do.  Is it reasonable that women who _want_ to rob banks 
should routinely be intimidated into working for a living?   Is it 
reasonable that women who _want_ to discriminate against gays, blacks, jews, 
et al (I hear Al took his employers to court last year :-)) should be 
routinely legislated into not doing so?   People seem to have decided that 
it is.  And if people decide that limits should or shouldn't be placed on 
abortion, I don't see how this will be any different.  


:                   -rocker
--
Frank O'Dwyer		       			Disclaimer: 
Siemens-Nixdorf AG 	                        I will deny everything
Tel.  : +49 (89) 636-40639                      Fax.  : +49 (89) 636-45860
e-mail: Frank.ODwyer@sniap.mchp.sni.de <--Use this, reply-to is broken
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity