From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Centrist position on abortion?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date:  9 Nov 92 21:01:49 GMT

In <6681@news.duke.edu> lanier@acpub.duke.edu (Dustin Lanier) writes:

>In article <92299.085047ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:
>>In article <6110@news.duke.edu>, lanier@acpub.duke.edu (Dustin Lanier) says:
>>
>>I think Mr. Lainer has
>                     Lanier :)
>>made some interesting statements to which others should
>>be able to openly debate if they wish.

>Sure thing, that's what I want.

>>>  The national din
>>>over abortion rights drowns out anything else that might pertain to woman's
>>>lives, like equal pay, equal jobs, health care, and violence against women.

>>I agree.  There are many issues that affect women and children
>>that are not being addressed.  However, the same groups that
>>wish to legislate against abortion, oppose many of the programmes
>>and initiatives listed above.

Is that a fact?  Do not mistake opposition to equal rights amendments,
some of which would make an abortion an absolute constitutional right,
with opposition to the programmes [I see Canadians use this British
spelling] mentioned by Lanier.

>>  Abortion is a subset of women's
>>equality.  It is unique, however, because only women get pregnant
>>and therefore, should the woman's opinion not prevail on the matter?

Both women and men are products of pregnancy, to use the Orwellian 
phrase that pro-aborts attach to infants in utero, but not those of 
us who are safely out of the most dangerous place on earth, statistically
speaking [to combat one propaganistic phrase with another].


>>>     We must resolve ourselves to pursuing every avenue that helps bring down
>>>the rate of unintended pregnancy and therefore the number of abortions.  We
>>>should try to reduce the rate of abortion by helping women avoid the
>>>circumstances that lead to abortion.
>>
>>This will require a system of day care that is affordable
>>and accessible.  It will require the provision of adequate and
>>safe housing.  It will require the availability of medical care
>>both pre and post natal that ensures that both women and children
>>are, and remain, healthy.  It will require women the opportunity to
>>continue their education or careers so they can provide for their
>>children without needing to rely on the kindness of governments.
>>
>>Is there a willingness to pay the price for such programmes?

[Aside.  Back in 1975, there was a discussion in a national newspaper, the
then-equivalent of USA today, about U.S. adoption of the metric system, 
and whether the metric unit of measurement should be spelled "metre" or
"meter".  One person wrote a letter, which the editor humorously titled
"Bettre spelling?"  in which he argued that using "kilometer" would be 
confusing to U.S. motorists in Candada and other places in the British
commonwealth.  The newspaper went out of business that very week, so I
did *not* send a letter saying, "I doubt if any honourable traveller would
				                   ^^^          ^^
land in gaol or even lose his licence if your programme to adopt British   
        ^^^^                       ^                 ^^
spelling is not realised."]
                     ^

But back to abortion...
>>Is the following statement "radical"?
>>"Abortion is a decision that should be left to a woman and her doctor"

No, if "her doctor" means "her family doctor" or "her gynecologist" or
"her ob/gynecologist."  Yes, if it means "the abortionist whom she sees
maybe once in her lifetime." 

I wonder how often, and for how long, the average woman sees this doctor
who is supposedly "hers".

>And I will ask again, do you support placing any restrictions whatsoever on 
>abortion?  If so, than at some point you have included someone, be it a parent,
>a spouse, the unborn child, etc. into the consideration.  Your statement 
>striked me as a simplistic platitude.
 ^^^^^^^

"Struck" is considered better throughout the English-speaking world.

Anyway, Ms. Birmingham's statement is not only simplistic, it is
misleading and propagandistic.

>>>  - Webster v Reproductive Health Services holds that the state can have a
>>>   "compelling interest in protecting potential human life."  We should not
>>>   allow ourselves to be locked into the arbitrary dividers of trimesters.
>>>   In order for the state to be consistent, it should apply the same standards
>>>   to determining life as it does to determining death.  Death is legally
>>>   determined to be a cessation of brain waves and a cessation of heart
>>>   activity.  The beginning of these in a fetus is determined to be at around
>>>   16 weeks.

Did you see my post where I asked you to document this?  My sources are
unanimous in a "40-odd days" point.

>>>  This is a much more consistent point than "viability", which
>>>   links our morality to scientific progress; a dangerous precedent.
>>
>>No more than linking morality with brain activity.  Morality
>>is personal and individual, particularly when the moral
>>judgement affects the individual.  

>Exactly, mortality is individual, just as if you were a religious cannibal, and
>it was perfectly moral for you to eat your nephew, I would not be unjustified in
>stepping in for that child.  Government must paint with a broad brush, and I
>feel that the stated restrictions are consistent and reasonable.

We might also mention human sacrifice, which often involved cannibalism.

Also polygamy is personal and individual, but few people, even those
arguing for legalized marriages between people of the same sex, seem
to be arguing for it.  The Mormons might, but for some reason they don't.

>>Any woman who is considering abortion as an option is in
>>distress about her pregnancy.  Why the double standard
>>for pre and post 4 month women?

>Because after four months I feel there is another human being involved that
>the state has to consider.

I agree fully, but I wonder whether your brain wave data supersedes mine.

>[***]

>>>  - Abortion should be considered a surgical procedure, subjecting abortion
>>>   to the same restrictions, regulations, and licensing standards as other
>>>   procedures.
>>
>>Which is why there is no need for a legislation.
		        ^^
Why not?  Are things so much more enlightened in Canada, that you are 
oblivious to the sad state of things in the USA?

>Yet there is no other medical procedure that involves the life of another human
>being, which I feel there is at 4 moths.

>[consent]
>>This would be covered under standard health practice.  One
>>does not have heart surgery, for example, without having the
>>doctor explain the facts about the surgery and the after
>>effects.  Consent forms include a statement that the patient
>>has been informed about the procedure and consents.  If this
>>procedure is not being used for abortions, and does anyone
>>have proof that it is not?, it should be.

As far as I know, Pennsylvania is the only place where such information
*is* required, and only since the Supreme Court upheld that part of
*Casey*.

>The point is that both federal gag rules and attempts to block discussion of 
>gestation and abortion alternatives is practiced, which is harmful by both
>sides.

The gag rule never went into effect, and is dead for at least the next four
years.  When will we see similar enlightenment about the risks of abortion,
about fetal development, about alternatives to abortion?

>The woman most likely to have an abortion is a white female between the ages
>of 20-25 with a career and a high school diploma.  The number one reason
>given for abortion is an impediment on career or scholastic goals.

I wonder how far down the list one finds the fear of giving birth, and the
discomforts of pregnancy, which Ms. 
Birmingham seems to take as her biggest motivators, as do so many
talk.abortion regulars, especially Mr. Blackshaw, who has even outdone
Ms. Birmingham with his purple prose.

>>I assume that most Americans are aware that the US has one of
>>the highest infant mortality rates in the industrial world.

Does this include the countries of the former Soviet Bloc?

>>That the rate of child poverty has increased steadily.  That
>>it is one of the few nations without some form of guaranteed
>>maternity leave and has lagged behind other countries in
>>providing health care and day care services.

As long as "health care" includes elective abortion, at least
past the 5th week of pregnancy, that is not an unalloyed evil.

>Yet this comes on the heels of an explosion in expeditures, a flurry of 
>government programs, and billions in sunk money.  Do you suggest yet more
>of this fiscal irresponsibility?

We're going to get a lot more of it, folks, now that Clinton is 
going to be President.

>>Considering that Canada found a solution that ended the turmoil
>>without legislation and that Brazil, where abortion is illegal,
>>reported 4 million abortions and 10,000 dead women due to illegal
>>abortions in one year, I don't agree that abortion legislation is
>>a solution.

Where do you get your statistics, Ms. Birmingham?

Just who did the reporting of all those 4 million *illegal* abortions?

The woman? the abortionist? how many people are aware of these illegal
abortions when they occur?  how is it that there are more than twice
as many *illegal* abortions *reported* in Brazil than there are abortions,
the vast majority of which are legal, reported in the U.S. and Canada
combined?

What are the penalties for these illegal abortions, and how many reports
are followed up by arrests, convictions, etc.?

I believe you once said something about the US having the highest
rate of C-sections in the world.  I'm under the impression it is Brazil.
What is the source of your statistics on C-sections?

>Do you really think that under the regulations that I set out that there
>would be 10,000 women dying because there did not have acess to 
>abortions? Do you really give women so little credit that you think
>that in four months they would be incapable of making a decision?

I'm just as curious as to Ms. Birmingham's answers to these questions,
as to mine.


>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Dustin Lanier                                   Kemp in '96! Kemp in '96!
>lanier@acpub.duke.edu                           Screw that, Kemp in '92!

>"I didn't know we had a King, I thought we were an autonomous collective.
> You're fooling yourself! We're living in a dictatorship! A self perpetuating
> autocracy in which the working classs ... oh there you go bringing class
>into it again!"  - Monty Python and me during the Clinton years.

Sounds like we're really in for it, folks. :-)

>My opinions are the opinions of everyone at Duke University .. yeah that's it!
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Did you ever relay my message to Duke Prof. Dellinger, whose opinion is so
radically different from yours?

Peter Nyikos

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:46618 alt.abortion.inequity:4838 soc.men:18655 alt.dads-rights:2545