From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:27:23 GMT

frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes:

>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?

I was really asking what yours was.  We pretty much all have to
take the chance that what we're doing is right.  MAYBE drinking
Coca-Cola is a horrible sin (caffeine could be a misunderstood
lifeform, after all), and MAYBE I'll be called to account for
my actions.  But I prefer not to live my life consumed by para-
lyzing doubt, worrying whether this or that action is, unknown
to me, wrong.  We make the best decisions we have based on the
information we have access to.  And a lot of women have decided
that abortion is not, for them, wrong.

>: >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'm sorry, you can't have it both ways here.  Earlier, you indicated
that one of the reasons you believed that all women would have a
conscience reaction to abortion is that people would be _telling_
them it was wrong.  Now you hint that they'll have a bad reaction
in _spite_ of what they're told about it.

And your last sentence here is simply wrong.  You say that a 
counselor offering an opinion is communicating misinformation.
Opinions are not misinformation.  I also doubt that any
well-trained counselor would be offering his/her own opinions
as fact in a counseling session.

>I'd say that that does nobody any favours.

I'd say it could be very reassuring to someone in a difficult
situation, who perhaps had to walk through a wall of screaming
nutcases to get in the door.  Sometimes, people just need to
hear someone confirm what they're thinking.

>: >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.

Indeed.  My life would be much easier if I never had to worry about
an unintended pregnancy.  The first one was no picnic.

>The second point sounds like you would not allow a society to put any 
>limits whatsoever on abortion.  

It's not my place to "allow" society to do anything.

>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.  

Remember that women hold only a tiny fraction of the power that
ultimately decides what legal limits are placed on abortion.

[Aside to everyone reading: A situation you can help to change by

     ___VOTING___!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you.]

>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?   

Apparently our society doesn't think so, as this is not the case here.

>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?   

Apparently our society doesn't think so.  The situations in which 
discrimination is legally actionable are quite narrowly defined.
(housing and employment come to mind)

>People seem to have decided that it is.

What country are you referring to here?  I realize you're not in
the US.  What are the abortion laws like in Denmark? (assuming
that that's what .de stands for)

>  And if people decide that limits should or shouldn't be placed on 
>abortion, I don't see how this will be any different.  

Well, ok, but not quite in the way you think.  Since neither of
your other examples hold up, I don't think abortion would either.


>Frank O'Dwyer

                     -rocker