From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 08:32:00 GMT

In article <1dq3b1INNj56@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue) writes:
>
>>Also, why do you assume that the
>>woman is more important than the "defined" life inside her?
>
>Because I am an adult woman, and I *know* I am more important than
>an unborn foetus.
>
>							--  Michal 

This smells like an opinion...  It looks like an opinion.  Hmmmm...

Gosh, I wish the world was as black and white as you *know*.  Ok, you
took a vote and you won over an unborn foetus.  Now, let's change the
players and employ a special trait where we can speculate on what
happens in the future and vote again.

	Mother X                vs.            Baby X'
	========                               =========

In this corner, weighing 140 pounds is Matilda Mother.  Matilda dropped
out of school at age 14 and hit the streets.  Besides several
prostitution and drug convictions in her life, she is also an alcohol
abuser and is sometimes violent to the point of doing physical damage.
She will never accomplish anything of real value in her life, although
she will traumatize several people and have mostly a negative impact on
everyone with which she deals.  She will live to the ripe old age of 72
when she contracts stomach cancer and dies.

In this corner, weighing 4 ounces, is Baby Blue.  Baby Blue (who, if
she lives) is genetically viable, and is genetically capable of being a
normal human being if raised in the proper environment.  If Baby Blue
had been put up for adoption, the adopting couple would have been Dr.
and Mr.  Smith.  The Smiths would have provided a stable and nurturing
environment, as well as sparked a keen interest in medicine and science
in Baby Blue (whom they would have named Chelsea).  Chelsea Smith,
through her active research in human genome mapping, would have
designed a series of attack virii that would have fought off
each of the many strains of the HIV virii.  In effect, a cure for
AIDS.  As a result of her work and many publications, target virii were
designed to attack mutant cancer cells.  Within 10 years of her attack
virii research, a cure for the common cold was even created.  However,
because her mother, Matilda, was given the right to abort her at 11
weeks of the pregnancy, Chelsea Smith was never born, and the designer
virii research was delayed for another 43 years, during which time an
additional 148 million people died of AIDS related complications and 
700 million died of cancers that would have lived full lives if Chelsea had
only been born.

OK, can we vote on these two?  Does Matilda get her right to kill
Chelsea or does Chelsea get to cure AIDS?

Got it, yet, Michal?  It's not as black and white as Mother Teresa vs.
the creature from the black lagoon.  It's a difficult decision for us
to make, and there is no absolutely right choice and there is no
absolutely wrong choice.  It involves many different values,
intellectual values, societal values, biological values.  That's why it
is a hotly debated issue.  That's why so many people waffle around
until they find a position that they are happy with intellectually--and
then they still change their minds.

You want to know what the bottom line for me on abortion is?  Not a
woman's right to kill another human being.  No.  For me, the bottom
line is this:  

1) In a few years designer drugs and early pregnancy tests will make
   the decision to abort a very private one--one that is performed in
   the home--alone.  Can you say, RU486? or whatever?  You won't have
   to go a doctor, you won't need state money to pay for it, it will be
   about as traumatic as having a period.  The few abortions that will
   still be performed the old-fashioned way will be solely for medical
   reasons and because of risks to the mother's health if she continues
   to carry the baby.  Typically, though, abortions will become
   something like the contraception after the fact.  At that time, the
   whole debate will be moot.

2) The population of the US was 70 million people in 1900.  Today, we
   are approaching 300 million.  That's a growth rate of 4x over 100
   years.  If we had maintained such a growth rate, there would be 1.2
   billion people--more people than currently live in China--living
   here in 100 years.  Fortunately, we curtailed the rate of population
   growth somewhat, but we still need to think about a zero growth rate
   (or even negative growth rate) in the near future.  In other
   countries, the growth rate is not so close to being under control.
   In fact, some statisticians think that world population will reach
   saturation within 70 years.  After saturation is surpassed because
   of birth rates that are too high, the death rates will rise, due to
   starvation and murder, until we get it through our thick skulls that
   we just can't keep having babies.  They're quite inefficient and
   ineffective if we don't have the resources available to ever teach
   them how to contribute and not just be dead-weight.

3) The situation described towards the beginning of this post, although
   not impossible, is unlikely.  It is especially terrible when women
   who cannot provide for a child financially, intellectually, or
   emotionally go ahead and have children--and all we get is more
   screwed-up people.

Aaron "Pro-choice Prophet" Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 

My memory is failing me on this.  Wasn't/isn't "86" a mob culture slang
term for killing someone?  "Louie, 86 the guy and let's get outta
here." If I'm remembering correctly, that makes RU486, not only a drug,
but also a question.

RU486?
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47602 alt.abortion.inequity:5015