From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 28 Sep 1992 08:06:46 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

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:
>>>
>>>I sense, Adrienne, that you dehumanize the unborn and that abortion, is
>>>indeed, justified.  
>>
>>I think abortion is indeed justified when a woman decides for herself that
>>abortion is indeed justified.  What that does with your speculation about
>>my impressions of the humanity or lack thereof of fetuses escapes me.
>>
>I was merely putting forward the general impression I got from your last
>post.  In a way, it was like saying "You said ________, right?"  Based on
>your response, I do get at least a partial yes on it.

Then you'd be wrong.  I said that abortion may well be justified.  That
had zip to do with 'dehumanizing' a fetus.

An zip to do with your speculative analysis of my state of mind, thanks.

>To many people, justifying abortion is like justifying murder. 

So many people have this problem.  Many other people don't.  You can't 
effectively relate the state of mind of one group to another and make any
sense of it.

>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.

>>Further, you don't know what I would say.  Since I haven't had the slightest
>>problem in the last 7 years in saying things for myself, I would appreciate 
>>it if you would refrain from making up stupid, pointless text and attributing
>>it to me, thank you.
>Also, maybe I should have said "you might say" or something to that extent.
>I tried my best to summarize your response into an easier to handle form.

Don't.  This newsgroup has enough traffic without you providing pseudo state-
ments from the people you are communicating with.

Besides, you would be wrong more often than right, and your own credibility
takes a nose dive.  Wouldn't want *that* to happen.

>Well, first of all, the impression I got from one of your posts/responses
>involved having an abortion because you might not be able to support it
>vs. having a baby later (and thus, aborting the child now) at a time
>when you can support it.  This implies that the situation the parent(s)
>is/are in would really affect whether the unborn is to be aborted or not.

My comment had to do with a particular reality stated by the woman involved.
I was speaking to the woman, about her desires and her wishes and her feelings.
I was not speaking to a fetus, nor was I dealing with the 'wishes' and 
'desires' and 'feelings' of a fetus.  I don't give a damn about 'the unborn',
because I don't think they *have* desires, feelings and wishes.

>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.

>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.)

>>>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?


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.

>I DID NOT say this.  You misinterpreted it.  I said:

Funny how that happens.  "gee, I was only summarizing....."

>>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?

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.

>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.

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!!!!!  

You would question one, but not the other.  Why is that?  Intellectual
honesty demands,  if we question one side of the equation, that we likewiswe
question the other.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion