From: jennyg@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Jenny Gutbezahl)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:54:09 GMT

>>In article <1992Aug26.225301.24877@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug26.135803.10046@sinix.UUCP> ian@sinix.UUCP (Ian Malone) writes:

>>>>
>>>>Like, Duh.  Think about it.  Who gets pregnant unintentionally?  The Poor.
>>
>>Oh?  I didn't realize that this was the case.  Why do you believe this?
>

Okay, Alex, I'll grant you that one.  It's not necessarily the poor who
get pregnant unintentionally.  Nor is the dumb who get pregnant unintentionally
(whatever M. Quayle may think).  However, if the government makes abortion 
illegal, or prhobitively expensive, or forbids Doctors in public clinics (the
only ones most poor people can afford) to tell their patients about *all* 
their options, it is reasonabe to say:

Who has unwanted children?  The poor.

Also, since the past two (Republican) administrations have cut WIC and 
public health care to shreds, and since pre-natal care is far more expen-
sive than abortions, it is reasonable to say:

Who has children without the benefit of medical attention?  The poor.

And since the poor are far more likely to get pregnant, and bring the 
babies to term, when they are teenagers, and therefore more susceptible
to birth defects, and since the poor are less educated about the neccesity
of proper nutrition and exercise during pregnancy we can furth say:

Who is most likely to have a baby with serious birth defects?  The poor.

Since the poor are more likely to have drug or alcohol problems, and also
to be of color, we can continue with:

Who is most likely to have a drug-addicted, or Fetal Alcohol baby that is
a member of a minority, and therefore not very likely to get adopted?
The poor.

And since most poor women who get pregnant are either single mothers, or
don't have husbands as wealthy as Barbara Bush's or Marilyn Quayle's, and
therefore don't have the leisure time to "uphold traditional family values"
by staying home to take care of the kids while hubby brings home a nice
fat paycheck:

Who is most likely to be able to bring full child-rearing attention to
the home and make sure the child is well looked after, fed, and given
the love every child needs to grow up healthy and happy?  The poor.

Finally we come down to:

Who is most likely to be dirth-defected, drug-addicted from birth, and
neglected?  The children of the poor.

I have numbers to back up all my "most likelies" if you want 'em, but most
people find statistics pretty boring.

Now I'm not saying that a child who is born poor is destined to be a
failure.  There are plenty of people who cam from poor families (such
as Bill Clinton) who have made significant contributions to society.
However, most of these children were wanted.  And love and attention
and care from their families was an important part of their growth.
No matter what the GOP would like us to believe, you cannot *force*
people to have family values.  You can't pass legislation that requires
a mother to love her child, even if the child's birth forced her to leave
school and end all hope of a career, even if the child is the result of
rape, even if the child merely came before the mother was old enough to
understand the responsibilty of motherhood.

Again, a child *can* be born unwanted, poor, and physically disabled and
still lead a productive life.  But you must admit, the odds are stacked 
against him/her right from the start.  By forcing this child to be born,
you are not doing the child any favors.  You are very likely sentencing 
him/her to a life of pain, and you are sentencing society to pay a very 
large price for his/her existence.

To say that the child would be better off alive, without considering the
life s/he will be leading, is like mothers in Florida telling their kids
"go out and play, it's bad to spend all your time in the house," without
taking into account the fact that there is a hurricane blowing.

In an ideal society, there were be no unwanted children and a warm
supportive society for all children who are born.  Unfortunately,
budget cuts & legislation over the past twelve years have made abso-
lutely certain that the world is *not* a welcoming place for the children
of the poor.

-Jenny
-- 
***************************************************************************
jennyg@titan.ucc.umass.edu is    :  I don't want to set the world
      Jenny Gutbezahl @          :   on fire, only Hoboken
    Univ. of Mass, Amherst       : 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc