From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 20:59:41 GMT

In <1992Oct6.170405.6878@nwnexus.WA.COM>, Jennifer Brindle writes:

>I haven't been following this tread, in fact, I've been routinely junking
>the entire subject, but I came upon this excerpt and felt compelled to
>reply...

That's the wisest thing I've heard here all year!:-)

>In article <ld0okmINN8b6@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael
>>Simon E. Booth) writes:
>|>
>|> Why is it that when someone says that they are pro-choice they staunchly
>|> support abortion and refuse to discuss alternatives??
>

>When someone comes up with an alternative to abortion I'll support it.
>Right now, abortion is the ONLY way to stop a pregnancy before birth.
>There is no other option for women who don't want to be pregnant.
>Come up with one that is safe, cheap, and readily available and I'll
>I'll support is as staunchly and vehemently as I support the choice
>for abortion.

I agree.  Most pro-choicers are not pro-abortion.  I do know a couple of women
who ARE pro-abortion, not just pro-choice.  Those are the exception and not
the rule, though.

>For those who might be quick to supply "Adoption!" might I remind yo
>that aboption is not an alternative way to stop a pregnancy.  Adoption
>is an option ONLY after birth has occurred and is ab solutely no help
>in stopping a pregnancy at all.

I was at a dinner for Libertarian candidate Andre Marrou on the 17th of
September.  Marrou reaffirmed the LP's pro-choice position, but went on to
encourage all pro-lifers (and pro-choicers who would prefer alternatives to
abortion) to invest in "fetal transplants."  This can currently be done, but
it's experimental and very expensive.  This is done routinely in cattle today.
This would stop an unwanted pregnancy and start a wanted one.  I for one would
love to see my tax dollars spent here, as opposed to government funded
abortion.  The procedure is not much more complicated than an abortion for
the first trimester.  Research is going on in this matter.

>In fact, when a woman is faced with an unexpected pregnancy, there are
>only two courses of action she can take now: end the pregnancy through
>abortion, or continue and give birth.  There is no third alternative yet.
>Come up with one and we'll discuss it.

I've tried to do just that.  I don't know how feasible it is, or when it would
be readily available as an option.  I certainly like the idea, though, as most
*reasonable* (i.e. non-demagogical) pro-choicers and pro-lifers would.

>>|>
>>|> I have one solution, and I'll get nuclear flamed for it, but what is
>>|> wrong with abstinence as a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
>>>|> BTW--anyone notice that I've kept my postings on the level, without the
>>|> sarcasm of the replies I get???
>>
>>There is nothing wrong with abstinence.  In fact, my daughter is practicing
>>just that.  But there is also nothing wrong with engaging in pre-marital
>>intercourse, if done with protection and with a person she has an onging,
>>positive, emotional relationship with.

>I agree that abstinence is good--for some people.  Abstinence would not
>work, for instance, in my relationship.  For one, I enjoy sex and so does
>my husband.  To simply shut off that part of our relationship until
>menapause is unreasonable and probably would wreck our marriage.  I choose
>to save my marriage, and enjoy my body (and his!) and take the risk (albiet
>small) of unwanted pregnancy.  If in the event that a pregnancy would
>occur, I'd make another decision at that time.

Agreed.  I know that my wife and I are very careful about starting a pregnancy
before we're ready.  Just because we're not ready doesn't mean that we have
to (or should) remain abstinent.  If an accident occurred, we would never
consider abortion, but that's a personal decision, not a statement about our
ideal government policy.

>>There is a reason we don't allow 14-year old children to vote, drive,
>>drink, etc.  They are not capable of making good decisions all the time
>>(who is, actually).
>>

>Here I disagree with the poster.  I think that many 14-year-olds are
>capable of making good decisions, particulaly when it concerns their
>own lives.  And I think that if a teenager wants an abortion she should
>be able to get one--without _having_ to get permission, or even inform,
>her parents.  I don't believe in legislating family relationships.
>I also think that if a teenager wants to continue the pregnancy and
>have the baby, then she should be able to do so--without pressure to
>give it up for adoption. I think the support system should be in place
>(if not by the parents, then by the state) to ensure good day care,
>continued education for the mother, and any help she needs to get back
>on her feet to support herself and her child.

Major mixed feelings.  I don't know if most 14-year-olds are capable of
making such a decision alone.  Some are, no doubt.  As long as we live in
a society that hold parents responsible for the actions of their under-18s,
though, I think that parents must be allowed to intervene.  If the child is
responsible enough to make her own choice, then shouldn't her parents be
legally indemnified (immune to liability) if she does something else wrong
before she's 18?  Rights and responsibilities go together.  Strip parents of
their rights, then they are no longer responsible.  Children cannot have it
both ways.

I don't want the state becoming surrogate parents, either.  We already have
way too much government.

If you don't believe in legislating family relationships, as you say, then do
you think the government should step aside as the parents (the so-called heads
of the *family*) raise their children as they see fit?  If not, you *aren't*
against legislating family relationships; you would be against parental
authority and selectively favor legislating family matters.  I don't know if
that's true in your case, though.

>When people (and Bush is one of them) state that "a teenage girl can't
>get her ears pierced without her parent's permission, but can get an
>abortion", they aren't understanding the complexities involved.
>They need to think "Why is that?" instead of belaboring on the fact of
>it.  The answer to "Why?" is simple...once the person asking starts
>to think.

Agreed.  Not having your ears pierced is not a parental mandate that will
affect you for the rest of your life.  Besides, you can get them pierced as
soon as you turn 18.  A 14-year-old girl can not put a pregnancy "on hold"
until they are 18, and then abort.


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
***************************************************************************
FLASH!  Card-carrying Libertarian attempts to attack problems in the REAL
WORLD!  Film at 11....
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6066 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5999