From: suo@cae.wisc.edu (Franklin Suo)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Behavior-related Medical Conditions
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:07:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: doug.1992Apr16.120704.21288
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Originator: suo@sun-1.cae.wisc.edu


In article <1992Apr15.224809.11000@cs.rose-hulman.edu>, pearsodc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Douglas C. Pearson) writes:
|> Franklin Suo writes
|> > 
|> > Millions of people would outlaw abortion as a medical remedy for 
|> > pregnancy, yet I doubt that many people would deny treatment to smokers 
|> > with lung cancer, to hi-fiber-cereal-haters with colon cancer, or to 
|> > motorcyclists who tried to head-butt the side of a tractor trailer at 60 
|> > MPH. Why the double standard here?
|> > 
|> Double standard?  What double standard?  I don't see no stinkin' double  
|> standard!!!
|> 
|> What you are trying to do is equate pregnancy - the creation of life - one  
|> of the most beautiful things in all of creation - to an INJURY or a  
|> ILLNESS.  Pregnancy _is_not_ an illness!  It is the creation of a life!   
|> That life should be protected!

I never called pregnancy a disease; I called it a medical condition. Pregnancy
in itself is not pathological, but it opens the possibility for a
number of related diseases which non-pregnant women either will not be exposed
to, or will experience a lesser degree of risk than a pregnant woman will.
  
|> 
|> > If we want to make medical care available to people, (regardless of the
|> > mechanism), we simply have to accept that many of the people who are in 
|> > need of care will have engaged in behaviors which either should've been 
|> > avoided, or of which we might not approve. 
|> > 
|> > We generally accept that the best way to reduce the incidence of lung 
|> > cancer is not to ban doctors from treating those patients, but to reduce 
|> > the ammount of tobacco use. This is accomplished through substantive 
|> > education, i.e. not just telling people that smoking is bad for you, but 
|> > by presenting data showing why it's bad for you, explaining those data, 
|> > and by offering alternatives to that behavior, such as Quit-Smoking 
|> > Clinics and other forms of voluntary intervention.
|> > 
|> So what you're telling me is that abortion is a medical treatment aimed at  
|> ending a disease.  This once again assumes that pregnancy is an illness.
|> Pardon my blatant disregard for the King's English - 
|> 
|> PREGNANCY AIN'T NO DAD-GUM DISEASE!
|> ABORTION AIN'T NO DAD-GUM CURE!

Pregnancy is, however, a medical condition, and abortion is the medical
procedure that eliminates it. We could argue semantics all day, but for a
woman who is considering abortion, her pregnancy could have an impact on her
life that is similar to that of a disease. I purposely attempted to use proper
medical terminology whereever applicable, to make the point that abortion
decisions should be made between a woman and her doctor.

|> 
|> Even a fair number of pro-choice folk out there would agree with me when I  
|> say that ABORTION ENDS A POTENTIAL LIFE.  Now, the legitimate question to  
|> ask here is "what constitutes a life?  Is a fetus alive after it is  
|> conceived, after 3 months of pregnancy, when?"  I happen to take the view  
|> that life begins at conception, but I can understand, if not accept, where  
|> someone would be of the opinion that you can't call a small group of cells  
|> a human life.  I CANNOT understand someone calling a fetus a 'tumor',  
|> which, Mr. Suo, you are in effect doing.

I would never equate a fetus with a tumor. The whole point of the comparison
was to illustrate that abortion and pregnancy are MEDICAL issues, despite the
emotional baggage we often attach to them. I was suggesting a way of reducing
the number of abortions through the use of frank and explicit education about
the efficacy of abstinence and birth control methods, and was pointing out
that many pro-lifers (i.e. the Catholic Church) are publically opposed to this
proven method of reducing undesirable health-related behaviors.

|> 
|> Consider the inherent danger in what you are saying, Mr. Suo.  What if  
|> your parents had considered you a tumor and had your mother undergo a  
|> simple medical procedure for your elimination?  In fact, what if all  
|> children were considered tumors and were aborted?  The human race wouldn't  
|> last very long, would it?

FYI, I was adopted. I have never met my biological parents, and have no desire
to do so. This does not change my opinion in the least, however. If I had been
aborted, no-one would've known the difference, including me, because I never
would've existed in the first place. The space-time continuum would've
proceeded just fine without me.

|> 
|> Of course, this isn't what you meant.  But tumors of the lung don't tend  
|> to hang around very long, either.
|> 
|> Chuck Pearson
|> pearsodc@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
|> 
|> 'he could have been thrown away before he had the chance to say
|>  hey world, i am here and i have something to give
|>  hey world, i'm alive and i am wanting to live'            -Petra


"America the Beautiful, land of the free,
Don't change the words to Land of Hypocricy"		Frank Suo
--Anthrax--						suo@cae.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh