From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:52:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.001828.8498@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>>Well I can't speak for the original poster but yes I am convinced that
>>at least some people have abortions without thinking through the
>>potential consequences.  Many especially have no idea of the level of
>>fetal development (you might note that many people want us to spend more
>>money on prenatal care and an important part of this is education about
>>fetal development.  Why spend the money if we all know this already?).
>>You know little of the psychology of decision making if you do not think
>>that we often make decisions based on the opinions of others.  They are
>>particularly influential in crisis situations.  All the Pennsylvania law
>>is designed to do is make sure that each prospective abortion client
>>gets balanced information which scientists (and lay people) know leads
>>to better decisions.  Information and a short time to consider it seems
>>quite reasonable given the enormity of the decision.  Clinton has just
>>said that we must find a way to reduce abortions.  This seems like a
>>reasonably nonintrusive way to begin that process.
>>
>>Tim
>>
>
>You make my point.  Read what you posted - it roughly translates to:
>"We know what's best for you.  You can't be trusted to make an informed
>decision yourself.  Therefore, by LAW, you must jump through these n
>hoops before your decision is deemed acceptable to us."  Isn't this
>the precise thing that Rush Limbaugh harps upon the democrats for?
>This sort of thing does not promote people thinking for themselves and
>taking responsibility for their actions.  It is social engineering, pure
>and simple, a thinly disguised attempt by the anti-choice faction to 
>encroach on people's personal decisions.  And it stinks.

I think that you have a rather warped sense of social engineering, Dale.
The people of Pennsylvania are not claiming to know what is best for
anyone.  They simply want to make sure that you are given the best
possible chance to find out what is best for you.  Let me give you a
different example that may help to clarify the point.  In most states
there is a three day cooling off period whenever someone comes to your
house to sell you something.  Anything contract you sign or anything you
buy can be anulled (and in fact is not inacted no matter how sure you
are) or returned no question asked if done within three days.  In the
states I am familiar with these rights cannot be waived regardless of
your level of certainty.  Is this because the government thinks you are
stupid?  Do you want to see this law overturned?  I doubt it.  Under
pressure people make poor decisions especially when all the facts
presented are one-sided.  Is this social engineering?  I think not.  The
abortion issue is similar, however, due the irreversibility of the
decision the cooling off period must come before the "sale" (it is a
sale of services).  No one is kept from having what they want in either
case.  But because of the pain caused by poor decisions the state makes
it possible for you to reverse your initial impulse.

Tim


Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4556 alt.rush-limbaugh:3669