From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism/Abortion
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:36:25 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Dec15.164923.19947@shearson.com> jjozwiak@shearson.com writes:
>Rosemary Said;
>
>	>2.  There is more involved in the abortion question than right to life, there
>	>is also the question of the rights of the pregnant woman.
>    
>Todd said:                                
>>"rights" should read "convenience".
>
>I say:
>
>"Convenience"? Yes, I guess your are correct. No other thought could possibly enter
>a prospective mothers mind other than how terribly inconvenient is would be to have
>a child. 
>How inconvenient to spend 9 months carrying a child to full term, going through what is described as the worst pain imaginable in childbirth, paying thousands of dollars for doctors, testing and hospitals, then raising another human being  till the legal age of 18 years old, or bringing another unwanted child into the world that may grow 
>up in foster homes if even that.
>
>Yea,
>I guess that is a little inconvenient. I suppose the pregnant woman should be
>forced to have that baby.  So what if she is 14 years old, or has been raped, or can
>not possibly afford to have/keep a child finacially or emotionally, or the father conveniently seems to disappear or show no interest.  Hell, thats what god gave her a womb for right?   So what if she has other plans in life.....like travel or college or a career.  She should put those thoughts aside and give birth damn it! 
>
1.  The "pro-choice/pro-abortion/anti-life" faction routinely omits the
third optional scenario for an unexpectantly expectant woman:  seek
assistance from friends and family and SO and local charitable organizations
to find a place to be assisted in obtaining medical care to carry the
baby to term and place the child in a loving adoptive home, either
through an agency or through a private adoption.  This posting corrects
that glaring omission.  I urge those of you who believe in the preservation
of human life to support the women's shelters which provide care and support
to these women in crisis pregnancies.

2.  "the worst pain imaginable in childbirth" can be easily lessened
by the use of pain relieving drugs, using such techniques as the epidural
which minimize the risk to both mother and child.


Essentially, it does come down to the ugliness of "convenience" and
"avoiding embarrassment" as the motivation.  That hardly seems like
justification for the destruction of a human life, regardless of the
early stage of that life.  The destructive action of abortion also
carries an "emotional cost";  many women have come to me for counseling
after being overcome with guilt over their abortions.  Sadly, they
are made to feel they have no real choice when their families threaten
to turn their backs on them if they go through with the pregnancy
and, because of the consistent omission of other options in the pro-choice
messages, feel forced to kill their baby in the womb.

To me, the animal rights advocates who stated (in other posts) that
abortion was a good idea for the reduction of human population are
hypocritical toward hunters and others who advocate human-predatory
population control for animals such as deer.

Mary Otto
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals