From: mwbg9715@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Wayne Blunier)
Subject: Re: Behavior-related Medical Conditions
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:24:21 GMT

suo@cae.wisc.edu (Franklin Suo) writes:



>There are a number of medical conditions whose frequency show a positive
>correlation with certain types of behavior. Several examples follow:

>CONDITION				BEHAVIOR

>pregnancy				sexual intercourse

>lung cancer, emphysema,			tobacco use
>hypertension, oral cancer

>obesity, hypertension, malnutrition,	improper diet
>artheriosclerosis, colon cancer

>head trauma				riding motorcycles without a helmet

>etc...

>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?

>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. 
You may accept that people are doing stupid things, and should still be provided
medical care.  I don't.  If someone chooses to due something stupid, let them
pay for the cost, not me.  If I do something stupid, let me pay the cost.
As a person that rides a motorcycle, I do not think that I should be forced
to wear a helmet.  If I do hit a semi at 60, I do not think the state should
pay for my stupidity.  The person at fault should.  Reguardless of who is
at fault, I will have to suffer from such injuries the rest of my life.  
I personally believe that anyone that rides without a helmet, glove, jacket,
and boots is foolish, but it is there privilege.  
>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.

>It seems that a similar approach would be effective in reducing the number of
>abortions. We could offer comprehensive sex education, giving explicit factual
>information about how to avoid getting pregnant by 1) practicing abstinence,
>and 2) using birth control. This approach is the primary one used by public
>school systems that offer sex education and family planning clinics such as
>Planned Parenthood.

>Yet one of abortion's largest opponents, the Catholic Church, is also
>opposed to the use of birth control, AND to the offering of sex education in
>public schools. The Church is suggesting that
>we simply forbid women from obtaining abortions, and this will solve the
>problem. Further, the Church is suggesting that by simply forbidding sex
>between everyone except married couples who want to have children, that the
>problem of unwanted pregnancies will go away.

>This simplistic approach to societal problem solving invites the
>self-righteous to rave against the immorality of abortion, simply for the sake
>of raving. It also reinforces a societal hangup over matters related to
>sexuality, which makes a substantive discussion of possible solutions next to
>impossible.
You have a 'solution' for the heathens.  Good for you.  The Catholic Church
has its solution to get to heaven.  In obtaining one's goal of reaching
heaven, they will also avoid the social problems of the heathens, but this
is not the intented reason for avoiding such actions.  Catholics do not 
forbid sex to keep for having babies, it is because it is a SIN. 
>Very few people consider abortion to be a DESIRABLE procedure, yet that
>doesn't mean we should simply ban it, bury our heads in the sand, and hope it
>goes away. While keeping the procedure legal, leaving options open for those
>women who are raped, for whom their birth control method fails, and even for
>those who engage in promiscuous sex of which some may disapprove, we should
>look for realistic ways of reducing the numbers of unwanted pregnancies.

What difference does it make if a person is raped?  Abortion is not wrong
because due to the circumstances of conception, it it because it is the   
taking of human life.  It is certainly more unfair to the person that was
raped to have to have there life changed due to someone elses action, as
opposed to the boneheads that just don't want to accept the consequences of
there actions, but then life never was much fair.  Killing a child is not
going to make life fair.
>"America the Beautiful, land of the free,
>Don't change the words to Land of Hypocricy"		Frank Suo
>--Anthrax--						suo@cae.wisc.edu

Mark