From: jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Response to "Bible and Abortion"
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:40:00 GMT

a-amberf@microsoft.com (Amber Foruria) writes:

>        You said that it was a "big myth" that women go around having 
>abortions as a form of birth control.  Well, I have two friends that 
>have done just that.  They either don't want to use birth control or 
>else their boyfriend refuses to use anything.

Amber, two things come to mind.  One, while anecdotal evidence is interesting,
and sometimes can be used to substantiate a fact, it is not overwhelming.
Two, I guess a "birth control abortion" depends on _your_ definition of
such, doesn't it?  I would suppose that any woman who chooses not to use
conventional birth control thinking, "well, if I get pregnant, I'll have
an abortion" and then behaves as such, has a "birth control abortion"--
every time.  If the woman did not have the _intention_ of using abortion as 
a fallback (in other words, she didn't think pregnancy would happen to _her_), 
then I wouldn't classify her subsequent abortion as "birth control", 
regardless of her use of conventional birth control. 

I would also classify someone who doesn't want to use birth control (assuming
they have an active sex life and have no medical reasons for their behavior)
to be irresponsible.  *I* believe that for those people, abortion is a
very responsible alternative.  Obviously, they aren't prepared for pregnancy 
or parenthood.  Their abortions would be within the realm of responsible
behavior for them.  It is not our place to judge.  And, most importantly,
it is NONE of our business WHY a woman has an abortion. 

>        I was asked to define "abortions for birth control"....I think 
>it explains itself, but if not, the explanation is above.

I must have missed it.  Please restate your definition.  The only "definition"
I could gleam from your above paragraph is that you believe that anyone who
doesn't use conventional birth control and subsequently has an abortion is 
doing so for "birth control" reasons.  If that is your definition, then I 
believe that you are coming to a conclusion with insufficient data.

>Well, after quite a few [first trimester abortions] there will be damage, 
>and if a woman is
>dumb enough to have a lot, she could end up permanantly damaged.

You've said it in a nutshell.  "if a woman is dumb enough..."  Why should
we legislate the entire female population to "protect" a few "dumb" ones?
I believe that a person must take some responsibility for their actions, 
don't you?  If there is evidence that after some number of legal first
trimester abortions, there is some kind of damage to a woman, and a woman
knows of this evidence, and goes ahead and has that number, then she should
be responsible for the effects, shouldn't she?

However, I would be most interested in knowing that number, wouldn't you?
Just asserting that there is a number without factual evidence to back you
up is as bit ridiculous, isn't it?

>Then, what about the ones that are done wrong?  Especially, if
>abortion is made illegal.  Then the women will not only be
>damaged, they could also die.  

Best argument I can think of to continue the availability of safe, legal 
abortions for any woman who desires it.

>        I DID NOT SAY A THING ABOUT LIMITING A WOMAN'S NUMBER OF
>ABORTIONS!!!!!!  IF SHE IS STUPID ENOUGH TO GET ONE EVERYTIME
>SHE FEELS IT IS INCONVENIENT TO HAVE A CHILD, THEN SHE WILL HAVE
>TO PAY THE CONSEQUENCES!!!!!

Please inform us of the "CONSEQUENCES" of repeated legal first-trimester
abortions.  I am not aware of any studies which show any effects after
repeated procedures to be that different than after one procedure.

>I don't feel that a mother is suffering
>if she must carry a child....

Obviously, you've never been pregnant and not wanted to be.  I have.  I
can tell you from first hand experience how I felt.  I felt out of control,
like someone else was ruling my life.  It was a terrible experience, one
that I don't ever want to repeat again.  That loss of self-autonomy was
devistating to me.  I resolved my emotional pain, finally, and now feel
good about the experience because I believe it made me a better person.
However, I would never advocate anyone being _forced_ to bear a child--
I know just how emotionally damaging to feel so helpless about your own
body.  To experience that feeling for nine months or more would be unbearable,
IMO.

>if she IS suffering, don't you think
>she should have thought about that BEFORE she decided to have sex and 
>not use birthcontrol?

That self-sanctimonious attitude is EXACTLY why I felt so emotionally crippled
when I found out I was pregnant.  It took a LONG time for me to resolve my
feelings because of this "logic".  I now know better than to believe that
shit.

>for those who will argue that birthcontrol
>is not 100%, she should have thought before she had sex at all!

Riiight.  Tell that to my husband.  "Sorry dear, but since no method of
birth control is completely effective, there'll be no more sex in this
marriage."  Uh-huh.  You really think things through, don't you?  Live
in the real world and you'll see that that attitude is stupid and self-
serving, just like your previous statement.

>And I don't feel that the father
>should (or has a right to) FORCE a woman (his wife, lover, mother
>of his child) to have a child. BUT, if men want to have an opinion
>on the subject of illegal abortions, I don't feel ANY MAN except the
>father has a right to say anything!!!  Unless it envolves a 
>potential child of his......he should keep his mouth shut!

Fairly well said.  

>People seem to ASSUME that because I said i was a 
>Christian that means I am pro-choice....that isn't totally true.

[Later amended to pro-life]

I wouldn't assume that, and I don't think that most folks on this forum
would be so bold as to assume that.  There are many christians on this
group who are adamantly pro-choice, and with the full and complete "support"
of their respective religion.  However, the most outspoken pro-lifers seem
to use "religion" or "christianity" as part of their argument.  I don't
understand that at all.

>I feel women should be able to have an abortion under any 
>circumstance OTHER THAN AS A CONVENIENCE!!!!

Well, if you're advocating legislation, then you're going to 1) come up
with a good, binding, legal definition of "convenience" wrt abortions, 2)
come up with a good and effective and constitutionally-approved method
of enforcing this legislation (in other words, how do you determine 
"convenience", and 3) come up with some justification as to why you
believe that IT IS ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS WHY WOMEN HAVE ABORTIONS!

>IF SHE IS RAPED, THE
>BABY OR SHE WILL DIE AS A RESULT OF PREGNANCY, THERE ARE SEVERE
>BIRTH DEFECTS IN THE BABY AND EVEN (if there could be some sort of
>guide lines....though that seems impossible) IN CERTAIN CASES OF
>SEVERE POVERTY OF THE PARENTS (but that is controversial because
>birthcontrol is given out free). So, I am pro-life, and pro-choice.

No, you are pro-control.  You would allow abortions only in cases where
you could judge.  You don't think the woman herself is capable of making
that judgement, you want to do it for her.  I can only speculate why.
You would also take a very private matter and make it public, subjecting
the woman to public ridicule and possible recriminations, all she could
meet some arbitrary "rule" that you have set.


Jennifer