From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Quayle on Values:  Where he stands and his background
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:56:38 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Aug13.181637.19509@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.140641.124@NeoSoft.com>, rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>|> 	BTW, your (and Daryl's) point about P.P. does verify to my satisfaction
>|> that they're biased, and I agree that's a crock of sh*t. They ought to be 
>|> doing exactly what you are saying- trying to at least give both sides of the
>|> story, if not outright advocating carrying the child to term. There shouldn't
>|> be any place that's _pushing_ abortion, IMO. I defend it, but it should 
>|> not be pushed off as an equal alternative to having the child. 
>
>So in other words, bias doesn't bother you if it's toward the 
>"correct" side?

	Well, there are a few considerations. Firstly, we tend to tell
JFH , Winemiller,and Daryl that they're pushing their standards on us.
We also demand that they "own up" to mistakes made by folks like OR. I
think it's fair for us to own up to their point on PP. There are three
basic paths a pregnant woman could take- abortion, adoption, keeping
the child. Of the three, adoption seems to least hurt the mother and
child. Either keeping the child or aborting could cause the mother
and/or the child serious problems. Obviously, abortion is going to
terminate the child. It's debatable (as we've proved) that that child
is a life. It's in question, to say the least. Aborting, though, can
also hurt the mother. Setting aside physical damage, I'm concerned 
about the psychological damage. It does happen; I've known two such
women. I think you would argue that keeping the child is no big deal,
since teen pregnancy doesn't bother you. I think it's tragic for some
women, and their children. So, yes, of the three options, I can
(I believe) reasonably say that bringing the child to term, and giving
it up for adoption is the primary solution that an agency such as 
PP should forward...not because I _think_ it's "right", but, because
they can best serve those that come to them asking for suggestions,
which is my perception of what PP is supposed to do, and because I feel
it's demonstrable that this option hurts less women in the long term.
Besides that, even though I don't think a group should be able to force
its values on another, I think respecting the other's view is fair,
especially in the case of abortion. To suggest that PP not offer all
three options is to force our opinion, and if they offer all three,
but _push_ one or the other, I think it should be that which offends
neither anti- or pro- abortionists, and best serves its clients. I
walk a fine line, here, because it's provable that putting a child up
for adoption causes mothers psychological problems as well. And it is
at this point that I do make a judgement call- that her psychological
hurt would be increased had she had an abortion. I doubt that could
be proved.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"They say 'David, what shall I do? They wait for me in the hallway'.
I say 'Don't ask me- I don't know any hallways."- David Bowie, "Scary Monsters"