From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 2 Oct 1992 08:07:24 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

In article <1992Oct2.034327.3571@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>I could understand if there were extreme circumstances, but what about
>abortions carried out simply because the parents think a child might
>be an inconvenience.  

Well, what about it?  We've heard this complaint phrased by a couple
people lately to the net, and I'd like to take the opportunity of your
post, Simon, to ask some questions that may help me understand this
complaint better.

Presumably, anybody who figures a child might be inconvenient will probably
continue to think so once the child is born.  Do you think this kind of 
person would be a good parent?

If you think they may not be a good parent, why do you figure anybody
anywhere should restrict them in their desires *not* to be a parent?

I've always been confused by this viewpoint, because it seems to me to
be neither fish nor fowl.  If you allow abortion in 'extreme circumstances',
then you would permit abortion.  You would permit the killing of the
human fetus because of circumstances.  If you would permit this killing in
circumstances *you* approve of, why is it so difficult to rationally 
recognise that you aren't capable of overseeing all circumstances, that
all value systems do not match yours one for one, and recognizing that
other people would pick other circumstances in which they would permit
the abortion?

And if you can make it that far in your reasoning, which seems to me to
be inescapable, unless I'm missing something important (please let me know),
then you logically have to conclude that there are circumstances of
'convenience' that others would figure it was logical to allow abortion
in.  

For example, just think seriously about this scenario.

A there is a woman who will bear a badly handicapped baby.
	B there is a person who figures bad handicaps is an extreme enough
	situation in which to allow abortion.
C there is also a woman who will be a horrible parent and doesn't want a baby.
	D there is a person who figures bad parents is the single best
	reason to allow abortion.

Person B would allow person A an abortion (however, Person A would be a
great parent, so person D wouldn't allow person A an abortion).
Person D would allow person C an abortion (but person B wouldn't).

Now, before you go saying that there aren't many person D's, let me point
out that I'm one.  I figure that the desire NOT to parent is the single
best reason not to parent.  And I know I'm not alone in that one.

See, somehow this line of complaint seems to reduce the argument from 
'killing is bad' (which is at least defensible to some point) by allowing
for abortion in 'extreme' circumstances to an argument of 'I want to say
when it's OK' which doesn't really look defensible in any form.
Can you tell me how I may have reached an incorrect conclusion?

I could understand if perhaps it was known that a
>child would be born with major medical problems and not live very long if
>born. But each case must be looked at individually.

I like the last sentence.  First, I think it is true.  Second, I think it
is impossible for any state or federal agency to do this so third, I consider
it to be good support for letting the woman in the individual situation
make her individual choice.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.pagan