From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:31:59 GMT
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:

>In article <adams.717777688@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
>>
>>>In article <adams.717438740@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <syl.717230669@bcserv> syl@bcserv.wustl.edu (Syl the Wallydraigle) writes:
>>>>>>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Official Astro Boy Virus expert)  writes:

>>And for that matter, assume for a moment that a woman is on the pill, uses
>>a diaphragm, spermicide and the man uses a condom with nonoxyl-9.  She
>>gets pregant.  I hardly think she CONSENTED to pregancy...(Granted this is
>>perhaps a stretch, but I wanted to make the point).
>
>... stretch it a little further, have her use a know effective method ...
[ ... ]
>Let's face it, the ONLY fail-safe birth control known is abstainence.  
>If 'she' chooses to use a form which is less reliable, that's her fault.

Ron, I presume then that you've also given up driving a car for instance.
I mean, sure you buy the biggest "safest" tank you can drive and you wear
a seatbelt and are the most careful driver in all history.  And there you
are tooling along and hit a slick patch (oil, ice, ...) and the car slides
off into a ditch.  Furthermore, you are seriously injured, and leaking
fluids fast.  Now I'm *SURE* you'll eschew all medical attention since
you *did* accept (by implicit contract) *all* possible outcomes of your
driving.  Only a broken arm?  Well don't bother getting it set, since
your (implicit) contract ruled out even minor medical procedures.

I also presume you don't smoke (lung cancer), drink (all those nasty
liver problems), eat red meat (increased heart problems)?  Abstainence!
Personally, I don't smoke or drink (alot) and eat meat in reasonable
moderation so I *am* taking precautions.  But that doesn't mean that
I forfeit any options to call on modern medicine just because I engage
in a slightly "risky" behavior.  Nor, do I call for a BAN on medicine
or surgery performed on those who do smoke or drink.  I think education
here is the answer as well.  It just seems we as a society are
spending a lot of time arguing over peripheral issues and *not*
getting the word out (on the consequences of risky behaviour) to those
who could benefit from it.

This is the problem with the concept "sex==consent to pregnancy".  There
is no reason nor need for such a implied contract.  Nor is it even
accepted by society in general.  Yes, I beleive people shouldn't be 
irresponsible and that abortion should be the last option.
But it *should* be an option.  It is a generally safe and effective
(but not necessarily best) medical procedure.  I've stated previously
to my dismay that it is overly used in cases where it could be prevented.
But this is based on the fact that it is an intrusive procedure. Furthermore 
my logic isn't so twisted to turn this into a call to BAN abortion;
but instead a call for more education.  But if I remember right, Ron
would like to see an end to that as well.

>>Why should the baby suffer for her stupid decision?  
>Nothing 'stupid' about it.  She wanted to engage in sex.  She did NOT want
>to conceieve.

Again, I'll have to call you here on this one.  Baby == after birth.
Inside the womb it's a zygote/embryo/fetus.  We've gone through the
warped dictionary definition flame war recently.  Please don't start
it up again.

>I see our views on life and death differ greatly.  When my youngest was 
>born (over six weeks early), I got a first-hand look at a neo-natal intensive 
>care unit.  It's real hard to look at all the premature babies and realize 
>that they are safe only because they are outside their mother's bodies. 

I'm confused by this last line ... are you implying that all those premies
are there because the woman "wanted" them out of their bodies?  And that
they would have *willingly* killed the z/e/f if it had remained?  Otherwise
I'm mystified as to what you mean by this in the context of abortion.

>Responsible adults make responsible decisions!  Why should I condone an "easy 
>way out" for the irresponsible ones?

Oh, so even taking contraceptive precautions is "irresponsible", since it
might lead to an unwanted pregnancy.  And what's this you have about
letting someone take an "easy way out"?  Is this a general philosophy, or
just limited to reproductive issues?   And who is to decide what is an
"easy way out" and what is a legitimate decision or alternative?  By this
I mean that I've bypassed the hardships others around me have encountered;
so in some ways I too have taken the easy way out, should I too be 
punished and made to endure said hardships?  I'll let you in on a little
secret [women, please stop reading at this point]

Psstt.  Don't spread it around, but you and I, we've got it made.  We
took the easy way out and [whisper] we "chose" to be male.  I mean, look 
we bypass that monthly "thing" and we can't get pregnant with all it's
drawbacks (general uncomfortableness to severe sickness and potentail
serious injury to our body and livihood).  Not to mention that we've
structured society to favor us over those lesser humans.  Just don't let 
those women in on our little secret -- hey, you women, stop reading I said!

for the sarcastically impaired: get a life.

-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion