From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:37:10 GMT

In article <1a7726INNcp4@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.215333.2878@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <1a082pINN5n8@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep25.191920.16436@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>>>In article <19tls2INNgfv@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>
>>do and the things we fight for even when somewhere back there, we sense
>>and feel that it is wrong.
>
>And maybe, just *maybe*, we sense and feel that it is right.

True, just as there are people who think beating up a child for not 
behaving properly, or Imperialists taking over other countries to take up
the "white man's burden" think what they do are right.

>I don't give a damn about 'the unborn',
>because I don't think they *have* desires, feelings and wishes.

Now explain a little more about your negative feelings towards the
unborn.  You don't think they have desires, feelings, and wishes.  That's
an honest point.  But do you consider the unborn human life? 

>
>>Also, had the child been born, he/she would be in a situation which he/she
>>might not particularly like.  
>
>There isn't anything I said in that particular case where any sensible person
>could draw this conclusion.  I did not address the fetus' feelings, period.
>Whether it would or not 'particularly like' a situation or not was entirely
>unaddressed.

So exactly what did you say then?

>
>>It is not your assumption (necessarily) but it certainly can be an 
>>assumption, nevertheless.  Again, I have to be able to summarize an idea
>>into an easier to handle form to see where I am coming from.
>
>To turn it to your needs, do you mean?
>
>(You see how easily one can misrepresent someone elses argument by '
>'summarizing' now, don't you?  If you don't want it done to you, take note.)
>

Please note that the responses I make include the actual post of what
is being responded to.  What I sometimes do is not to misrepresent the 
actual post but to give it some light and to give an idea of where I am
coming from and what point of view I am coming from.  I used, for example,
the word 'sense.'  I was merely saying my impression of the post.  If people
find it totally out of line, please email.  But remember, I do leave the
actual post for people to read and decide.

>>>>I hate thinking that children are "chosen."  That one child is worth more
>>>>than any other child.  All humans are special.  The circumstances (not
>>>>directly pertaining to the immediate "health" of the mother.)  should not
>>>>change the value of a child.
>>>You're kidding.  "I hate thinking that children are 'chosen'?"  Do you 
>>>prefer thinking children are accidental?
>>What I mean by chosen is that first you have Sarah in the womb.  Do you
>>keep or let her live?  Then later, you have Mark.  Do you let him live
>>or abort his life?  It goes to a point where those who are living become
>>the chosen few, while those who are aborted become the "rejected."  I find
>>it terrible to have to reject our children violently via abortion.
>
>Why?  If one can reasonably afford two children, and one wishes to have two
>children, and one can provide for two children without having to become
>wards of the state, you find it tragic that a couple would actually stick
>to their resolve to have two and only two children?

If the ends (having exactly two children) are achieved without the violence
of abortion, I don't think I would particularly be upset.  However, once
the ends (having exactly two children) justify the means (aborting a
Human life), then I do find it tragic that we have to resort to abortion.

>
>
>You think it is less tragic for people to have to bear, in some 'violence'
>may I add, additional children that they KNOW they cannot afford?  That
>they KNOW they cannot provide for?  There's some compassion, yep.

Yes, you have some compassion.  But your compassion stems from 
not caring for the unborn because they do not have any desires, wishes,
and feelings.  This equates the unborn, which are defintely human, to
mere nothings.  And when you weigh the preconceived notion that they
know they cannot afford the child more heavily than the destruction of a 
human life, then I feel saddened.  

Many of your persuasion have passion but I kindly ask you to look and see
exactly what the unborn is.  Then we can stop arguing about whether
we should abort some of our children to provide "better lives" for
our other children, and instead, work hard for providing all our children
and having our children be seen as beautiful assets instead of annoying
liabilities.  

>
>>>I dunno about you, Martin, but I'd rather see my children thrive than 
>>>fail.  
>>I agree completely!  But I don't like to "reject" violently some of my
>>children to make the others succeed.  How sure are we that a sibling
>>won't have a profound positive impact on that child.  I'm sure people
>>all over the place have at least one experience where a sibling has
>>helped them out and affected them in positive ways.
>
>Somehow I don't think that rejecting it 'nonviolently' would meet with your
>approval.  Tell me if I'm wrong.  Are you a big supporter of RU-486?

Violently and nonviolently have little to do with my stand on abortion.
Humane means of getting read of death row inmates, however, non violently,
can be just as bad as nonhumane means of executing death row inmates.

>
>BTW "we" aren't sure of anything, because "we" aren't involved in the
>situations of other people.  They aren't sure of anything either, but 
>THEY have to live with THEIR decisions, and therefore make the decisions
>that look best to them.  And along with you argument that people all over
>the place have nice stories to tell about their siblings, likewise would
>people all over the place have nasty stories to tell about their siblings.
>Thus I don't think the stories that people have to tell about their 
>siblings is a good basis for legislation.

But when the origins of allowing abortion are at least partially based
on the possibility that the child MIGHT suffer when they might not is saying
guilty before a fair trial.  

>
>>And even those who have had
>>abortions, way back in their mind (it may be buried very deeply though),
>>may feel that something unnatural and fatal was performed.
>
>Maybe.  Maybe not.  Since *I* don't know, and since *YOU* don't know, I
>figure I should keep my nose out of their business.  I also figure you 
>should keep your nose out of their business.

What exactly do you mean by business?  Do you mean the business of
having an abortion, and having a choice between terminating a human life
or allowing it life?  

If we should stay out of their "business," couldn't we also say mother's
should stay out of their children's business?  That we, as a society, and
mothers should allow their children to live a life without our terminating
them?  

>
>And there are likewise people out there who HAD children who may feel in 
>the back of their mind (it may be buried very deeply though) that 
>having the baby was a MISTAKE!!!!!  
>

But would the child who was a "mistake" agree?  Maybe yes.  Maybe no.
But it's the child's choice right?  If the mother had aborted her child,
the child would be dead.  A human life would be dead.  I say dead because
that is what actually happens.   A human life dies.  

A parent may "know what is best' for the children many times, but does
the mother (or father?) have the right to terminate a child's life for
his/her own good?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity