From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 29 Sep 1992 07:58:41 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

>>>>>Martin and Me:
>>>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.

You are right, of course, Martin.  But you would be less than honest to
also admit that very often people do things that actually *are* right, and
feel that they are right about it.

The possibility exists.  And, when we are examining possibilities of things
occuring, do you figure it's safer to bet on things that happen often to
lots of people, or things that happen rarely, to fewer people?


>>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? 

I consider the unborn to be human, and living.  I do not consider the
unborn to be 'a' human life.  Nor do I consider either it's humanness,
nor it's life, to be adequate reason to use another human being's body
against the will of that human being.  Surely this is no surprise.

>>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?

You don't know how to retrace the attributes (oops, admittedly, I've deleted
the lines above, tho the postings remain in the references line above)?  Go
back and look it up.  I was talking to Karen, about *her* feelings.

>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,

Ah.  I see.  You take someone else's words and change them to show where
*you* are coming from.

That looks like a rather odd and confusing method of presenting YOUR argu-
ment.  How 'bout you don't do that.  Or at the *very* least, refrain from
prefacing your statements about *your* point of view with "so what you are
saying is....."  Just a suggestion.

>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. 

There you go again, speaking for me and getting it wrong.  My beliefs do
not stem from a lack of caring for the unborn, but from a caring for the
born.  Whether my feelings about the unborn are negative, neutral or 
positive is unimportant compared to my feelings for the BORN, which is
highly positive and in favor of THEIR desires for themselves.

>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.  

Excuse me, "we" haven't been doing this.  Maybe you have gone off down
that primrose path, but I wouldn't waste my time.  If you have misinter-
preted my arguments in this manner, may I suggest it might have something
to do with conveniently rephrasing *my* arguments into your arguments and
then refuting them?  A circular pastime at best.

>>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.

Ah.  So this is a smoke screen.  Even if the mother, poor and unprepared
for her pregnancy KINDLY, GENTLY and with infinite compassion rejected
the unborn, you'd have a problem with it.

Wouldn't you have a better time if you just stated your *real* objections
so we could waste less time here?

>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.  

Excuse me?  Upon what evidence do you base this curious comment?

>>>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?  

I mean by keeping our noses out of their bodies.  That's what I mean.
I don't have any desire to set up family planning sessions for a bunch
of total strangers, thanks.

>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?  

You know, you can expand any argument, through spurious means, to encompass
anything.  Let's not and say we did.

>>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.

See, this is what I find very hard about arguing with people who can't
stick to the point.  You were talking about *having* the baby.  Now you
are talking about the baby itself.  

Do you or do you not agree that *having* a baby, and a physical baby, are
in fact two different things?!?!?  Can you please stick to the subject?

Nobody's saying the baby is 'bad'.  Nobody is saying the baby deserves
or doens't deserve (to live/to die).  We *were* talking about the woman,
and her decisions, before you insisted on changing horses in mid stream.
And even if the baby is a Nobel Laureate, it could have STILL been the
wrong decision for the woman to have *that* baby, *then*.

>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?

Not at all.  The mother has the right to terminate a fetus's life because
she doesn't wish to carry it within her body and take the risks that carrying
and bearing a child entails.

Adrienne Regard