Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Date: Tuesday, 11 Aug 1992 22:24:34 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Guttmacher - The Preferred Choice
Distribution: usa
 <92219.223309ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> <65508@hydra.gatech.EDU>

In article <65508@hydra.gatech.EDU> Richard Pitts says:
>
>In article <92219.223309ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>|In article <65039@hydra.gatech.EDU>  Richard Pitts says:
>|>In article <92215.220709ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>|>>In article <64793@hydra.gatech.EDU> Richard Pitts says:
>|>>>In article <03qm_qd.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>|>
>|>>>>>Has anyone else heard the statistic that AG informations
>|>>>>>points to the fact that 90% of those who have had
>|>>>>>an abortion would have picked another option, if 'a good
>|>>>>>alternative' was available or something like that?
>|>
>|>>>>>Sounds like the great desire for The Choice (The Right) does
>|>>>>>not mean that the ones who are making the choice think that
>|>>>>>abortion is the The Preferred Choice.
>|>
>|>>>>And what have the Conservative Right and the Piously Religious
>|>>>>done to provide alternatives?
>|>
>|>>>Nice names CR and PR - they may not have done anything, but...
>|>
>|>>But what?  These are the groups that are demanding
>|>>women bear children they can or do not wish to bear.
>|>>Should they not be doing something?
>|>
>|>But you should have read the next paragraph where I tell of what I
>|>know is being done, without jumping to a premature conclusion.
>|
>|I did read your following comments, Mr. Pitts, they
>|had nothing to do with the statements made above.
>|You, yourself, stated they "may have done nothing but..."
>|I asked why "but".
>|
>|Do you care to address that now?
>
>OK - here is the original - it is the same as it is quoted in this post,
>but I'm placing them back together in the original adjacent paragraphs.

Mr. Pitt I stated that I had read it.  It was unnecessary
to repeat it and it did not address either Mr. Fischer's
or my comments.

>The point is and I clarify is that Mr. Fisher can give nice names
>to any group he decides - the name don't mean anything - and
>the groups he points at 'may not have done anything, but ...' and

Are you trying to say that right wing organizations,
the organizations Mr. Fischer was referring to, do
not hold, or have held, considerable political power?
That these organizations have not shaped policies
that affect women, like those polled in the Guttmacher?

>I follow it with a couple of cases that are doing something (the
>Pro-life crisis pregnancy clinics in Atlanta and my church's ministry.

That affect a specific group of women and not
those women affected by right wing organizations
nor are they obviously helping the 90% of women
in the Guttmacher poll.

>|>>>Many if not most Pro-life clincs in the Altanta area provide
>|>>>alternatives - home for crisis pregancies, adoption, etc.
>|>
>|>>>Our church has a ministry that does this.  My wife and I
>|>>>are on the list to take these women into our home.
>|>
>|>>Are either you or your church capable of caring for all
>|>>the women who require this service?  What about after
>|>>the crisis pregnancy?  Do you support day care and
>|>>job security?
>|>
>|>We (me and my individual church) are not responsible for ALL the women
>|>who require this service,
>|
>|Yet you are willing to create legislation that will
>|affect "ALL" women, including those that do not
>|want the services.
>
>Most want some alternatives.

Perhaps, but you seem unwilling to exert the same political
pressure to ensure that these women get the alternatives.

>|You also failed to address the rest of the question
>|Mr. Pitt.  Do you support programmes that will
>|ensure day care, paid maternity, and job security?
>|Real iniatives that will help all women, not just
>|those that can be helped by the limited resources
>|of religious organizations.
>
>No, I DID NOT FAIL TO ADDRESS THIS.  I said I wasn't doing much
>about it and presented the point about people being wise in
>their decisions and PLANNING BEFORE THEY BEGIN THE ENDEAVOR.

Mr. Pitt what does this answer have to do with job
security, affordable day care or pay equity.?

>[my original comments were below and are now deleted, but they
>cover a vast majority of your questions about provisions.]

I'm afraid sir they didn't.  You have yet to say
whether either you or your church support social
programmes that will assist all women in alternatives
to abortion.  Indeed your answers indicate that neither
you or your church are interested in helping the 90%
of women in the Guttmacher poll who said they wish
they had alternatives.

>|>>>What does the Pro-Choice side provide? I believe they provide
>|>>>abortions much of the time, for those who come into the clinics.
>|>
>|>>You have proof of this?
>|
>|>Do you disagree that 50+% or maybe even a lot higher percentage of
>|>the women who go into abortion clinics get an abortion?
>|
>|I would not make any such statement Mr. Pitts, for
>|I have no proof one way or another.  Do you?
>
>Check with your local Planned Parenthood or whoever will give you
>some information and see what percentage get an abortion of those
>who come to them for counselling.

My local Planned Parenthood does not provide abortion
services.  They counsel, mostly teenagers, on birth
control.

Again Mr. Pitt you made the assertion, do you have
proof of your statements?

>|>I think there are at least 3,000 (pro-life) crisis pregnacy centers
>|>in the US.
>|>
>|>Again I ask what is the Pro-Choice side providing?
>|
>|In my country they lobby governments for day care,
>|adequate housing, education and job retraining.
>|They provide birth control counselling, teenage
>|hot lines and educational materials to schools.
>
>We are a capitalistic country.  Our churches on the other hand are to
>help each other in their time of need.

Mr. Pitt what does this have to do with your original
question?  You asked what prochoice organizations
were doing to provide alternatives.  I provided them.
Further, if you think my country is not capitalistic,
you are mistaken.

>|They successfully lobbied for paid maternity leave
>|(now 21 weeks), job protection, pay equity and
>|adequate mother's allowances.  Programmes that the
>|Pro-life organizations are lobbying to have
>|dismantled.
>
>Does anyone have to work?  What motivates people to pursue business
>endeavors?  How much redistribution of wealth should there be?
>There seems to be a point that you have to draw the line.

Excuse me?  Mr. Pitt did you not read what I wrote?
With the exception of mother's allowance all those
programmes ensure that a woman does continue to
work and be self sufficient.  She continues to pay
taxes just like everyone else.  She continues to
contribute to society.

For women on mother's allowance there is a great deal
of incentive and motivation for women to continue in
their education and job retraining.

Just what kind of alternatives did you think the women
in the Guttmacher poll were talking about Mr. Pitt?

>|>>>>Conservatives oppose laws requiring maternity leave.  Both
>|>>>>groups oppose sex education.
>|>
>|>>>>What's wrong with this picture?
>|>
>|>>>Greed - ignorance.
>|>
>|>>So what are you doing about it?
>|>
>|>Not much, how about yourself?
>|
>|If you are not doing much Mr. Pitts, why do you feel
>|anyone else should, including me or prochoice organizations?
>
>Again, I say each person should PLAN - we are not to provide all
>of life's necessities from birth to the grave.

Again, Mr. Pitt, why condemn prochoice organizations
for not providing services when you now appear to
be holding only the individual accountable?
If you hold the indvididual accountable, then the
individual should be free to make the choice that
is best for them, shouldn't they?

>|>Where do you draw the line for the finacial support a person's choice of
>|>having or not having a family?
>|
>|If you are going to force women to have children, I draw
>|the line at ensuring all women are adequately clothed,
>|housed, fed, medically cared for and their jobs or
>|education secure.  Where do you draw the line?
>
>They should PLAN - what they cannot do themselves (MEN INCLUDED) can
>be supplemented.

Are you saying that if a woman took contraceptives
because she was unable to care for a child, you
would support her decision to have an abortion Mr. Pitt?

>|>Should it be mandated by law or
>|>should it be reasoned out by the person making the decision.
>|
>|Which is why I am opposed to your legislating against
>|abortion, I believe it should be reasoned by the
>|person who must make the decision, not you or your
>|legislative representative.
>
>I am part of this country and so I have a right to express my opinion
>and influence my representative (NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION).

Of course you do, but why do you feel the need to
force women to have children through government
intervention and then oppose government intervention
to ensure those women and children are cared for?

Do you not think those who create legislation should
be responsbile for its outcome, Mr. Pitt?

>If I am in the wrong and/or hold a minority position, as many say, what is
>the big deal?

Too some Mr. Pitt the right to bodily security is a
very big deal.  I hope that if the government or a
group of people actively pursue the taking away of your
rights, that there are people left to protect you.


Linda
--
Why, oh why, in a land of plenty
Some just have to make due
At the end of a breadline with just a penny
I'll always remember you
   A Blessing and A Curse, Harry Connick Jr.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion