Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tuesday, 17 Nov 1992 13:48:31 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject:    Fetal Personhood Pitfalls (was Holtsinger on Harassment)

In article <1992Nov8.064722.10308@midway.uchicago.edu>e elizabeth bartley says:
>In article <92311.065313ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>In article <1992Nov3.191744.22467@midway.uchicago.edu> e elizabeth bartley:

>>>Linda dear, my blood pressure has yet to change due to people
>>>questioning the merits of my position.  I simply become upset when
>>>people describe a position that a hundred abortion a year should be
>>>heavily restricted and all others should be unrestricted as
>>>"anti-choice", when people quote my suggesting prison terms for women
>>>getting illegal abortions and carefully leave out the context which
>>>makes it clear that these are only non-medically necessary third
>>>trimester abortions, and such similar things.

>>Elizabeth dear in or out of context supporting jail
>>terms for women who obtain banned abortions is the
>>antithesis of the pro-choice movement.

>Supporting the jail terms, rather than criminalizing abortion in the
>first place?

Both.  Perhaps you should read some books on the philosophy
and history of the pro-choice movement Ms. Bartley.

>>to criminalize a medical procedure places an undue
>>psychological burden on those women who must obtain
>>the procedure by forcing them to justify why their
>>abortion should not be viewed as murder and ultimately
>>requiring women to literally plead for their lives.

>I've recently made it clear that I support requiring medical approval,
>not judicial approval....

Then there is no need for legislation since this indicates
that medical ethics are sufficient to prevent the type
of abuse you seem to think occurs.

>I know you can't have seen my exact proposal, because I've recently
>finished working it out and haven't posted it yet.

I have seen your call for jail terms. Recently I have
seen your denial of abortion privileges to rape victims.
In my opinion your position is clear.

>>Legislating fetal rights will cause further restrictions
>>to women in the work place and reduce the opportunity
>>for equality.

>Wow!  All this from legislation concerning a hundred cases yearly
>nationwide.

"To a remarkable degree, the antiabortion movement succeeded
 by the end of the '80s in bringing much of the medical and
 legal establishment around to its vision of the fetus and mother.
 The fetus would become the primary patient in the prenatal operating
 room, the full citizen in the law books, and the lead plaintiff in
 the courtroom.  In fact, by the close of the '80s, a fetus actually
 had more legal rights in some areas than a live child"

"As the fetus's rights increased, mother's just kept diminishing.
 Poor pregnant women were hauled into court by male prosecutors,
 physicians, and husbands.  Their blood was tested for drug traces
 without their consent or even notification, their confidentiality
 rights were routinely violated in the state's zeal to compile
 a case against them, and they were forced into obstetrical surgery
 for the "good" of the fetus, even at risk of their own lives."
   Susan Faludi, Backlash

All that and more, Ms. Bartley and without your legislative proposal.

>>Pregnant women have already been victimized
>>by court ordered invasive treatments to "protect" the
>>fetus.  You my dear are trying to use a sledge
>>hammer to swat at flies

>Remember, Linda, I consider third-term fetuses possible people.

Remember, Elizabeth, pro-choice philosophy considers women to be people.

>Allowing them to be killed at will is hardly a "fly" even if it *were*
>the lesser evil.

There is no evidence that your possible people are being
unnecessarily killed.  There is evidence that proposals such
as yours create an additional burden on women who seek abortion
as a medical treatment.

>>and in the process this will
>>create additional disadvantages for women.

>See above comment wrt "Wow".

"Anti-choice activists will try to lay criminal charges against
 woman who have had abortions and doctors who have performed
 them, on the grounds that an illegal abortion, as defined by
 the Criminal Code, has taken place."

"Anti-choice activists will try to *prevent* abortions by
 seeking injunctions against women and doctors.  They will
 argue that the proposed abortion is illegal because it does
 not meet the test of "health or life" established by the
 Criminal Code"
    CARAL Senate Brief, 1990

"Women might seek abortions after twenty weeks with the most
 compelling reasons - a teenager afraid to tell, a menopausal
 woman who had not realized she was pregnant, a woman who
 has just discovered that she is carrying a deformed child.
 A time-limit on abortion was thus seen as an arbitrary
 denial of these individual circumstances"
    S. Rowbotham, The Past is Before Us

Closer to home Ms. Bartley I have an aunt who had a medically
necessary late term abortion, she has a rare blood condition
and while she had delivered two healthy children and went on
to carry another, her doctor felt she was too weak to carry
that one, she would they felt probably bleed to death.  Her
abortion occurred when abortions, except those to save the life
of the mother, were considered criminal in this country.  My aunt
told me that along with all the other considerations that went
with her decision she had to include the stigma of participating
in a quasi-criminal behaviour.  You may dismiss her feelings if
you wish, I do not.

>>>Furthermore, as I made very clear in the post where I announced the
>>>killfiling, I feel a need to defend myself against such charges when I
>>>see them being made, and defending myself against your hero's repeated
>>>attacks was getting tiresome, taking up too much of my time, and
>>>forcing me to engage in more flaming than I cared to at the moment.

>>Perhaps instead of flaming you should have tried to
>>discuss the issue.

>I did.

Then I suggest that Mr.Keegan was also discussing the issue
and the repeated accusations of flaming were and are suspect.

>>Oh btw Elizabeth dear, the only heros I have are women.

>Interesting.  You would know, of course, but that seems the most
>appropriate word to describe your behavior wrt him....  I shall have
>to find a better term, then.

I suggest you try and accept that my posts to you have
been the direct result of your claims regarding legislation
wrt abortion, jailing woman and your dismissal that there
are woman who will be adversely affected by proposals such
as yours.  Label that whatever you wish.

>>wrt Mr. Keegan I just happen to agree with his position
>>on abortion and feel that the repeated accusations of
>>harassment are rather lame attempts at avoiding the
>>issue of why there is no need for legislation.

>Oh, Linda, dear....  I don't recall making accusations of harassment.

Do you really want to play the 'lets drag out old quotes'
game with me Ms. Bartley?

>I suppose I've probably agreed with the charge somewhere, but I
>haven't bothered to raise them;

Oh, Elizabeth dear .... do you wish to discuss the
"an anti-choice post" thread now?



Linda
--
It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
  Alfred Adler
Newsgroups: talk.abortion