From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:23:46 CST

In article <1993Jan7.204804.28324@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.040842.13694@netcom.com> 
>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger):
>>>In article <1ickh8INN200@meaddata.meaddata.com> 
>>>johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>
>>>> Abortion, among other things, reflects and contributes to the cheapening of
>>>> human life in society, the natural consequence of which is that individuals
>>>> become more likely to take or abuse the lives of others when others are in
>>>> conflict with the individual's other desires.  
>
>>> There's another article in the Jan. 3 edition of the Chicago Tribune
>>> about the killings of children in the Chicago area during 1992, some
>>> of them newborn babies killed shortly after birth by their parents.  
>
>> Excellent reasons for abortion to remain legal and affordable, and
>> encouraged.  
>
>It seems obvious to me that the availability of abortion didn't
>prevent the deaths of these children.  These children were killed 
>because their parents didn't place a value on human life, much in
>the same way as people who support abortion rights. 

I think you're off base here.  More probably, their
deaths are the result of rage, which can occur in 
all kinds of folk with a wide range of values.  The
newborn deaths may be the exception.  Sounds as if
those deaths occurred after unplanned, unassisted home
birthings--probably the women involved did _nothing_
about their pregnancies.  Seems a less responsible choice
than abortion.

>> Tell me Doug, would you rather a brainless fetus be
>> aborted at 8 weeks or wait until it's born and old enough to feel the
>> scalding water cooking it's flesh?  For my money, and opinion, I'd rather
>> the woman had had an abortion.  
>
>There are several errors in your statements; the most obvious is
>that an 8 week-old child has a brain.  
>
>Secondly, you offer a false dichotomy between killing the child 
>when it's legal, and when it's illegal.  No child has to be killed. 
>
As long as there are parents living in extreme duress,
some children will die in this manner.  Not all the parents
who can't handle parenthood know that ahead of time.  Some
of them think they want children.  But the suffering that
goes on in the lives of kids from dysfunctional families
is orders of magnitude worse that anything a first-trimester
fetus could possibly experience.  My vote would be to take
folks' word for it if they say they can't handle pregnancy
_or_ parenthood.

>And what you would rather have happen, didn't happen.  You can
>wish that these children had been legally killed, but your wishes
>can't turn back the hands of time.  
>
True enough. But my regret is for the duration of suffering
of those children, and has nothing to do with the legality.
A little girl I knew back in the sixties was beaten to death 
by her mother's boyfriend because she wouldn't stop crying.  
The young parents had married in the attempt to 'do the right
thing', and later divorced.  It is doubtful that little
Jennifer would have grown up normal and healthy in any
case, because her mom kept her on paregoric most of the
time, so she would sleep more.  Motherhood was much more
demanding than that young girl could handle, though she had
the best of intentions at the outset. 

I think abortion would have been strongly considered if it
had been legal at the time.

muriel
standard disclaimer


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55387 talk.religion.misc:25959 alt.atheism:25785