From: jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: What do you REALLY mean?
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:05:11 GMT

<MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>there appears to be a disparity between what pro-choicers say they believe
>in and their standard arguments.  We often hear that one is 'personally not
>in favor of abortion, but feel that its the woman's right to decide for
>herself'.

Why is that a disparity?  It's the _woman's_ _choice_.  I may make one
choice, you another.  If I were advocating that women get abortions then
that's one thing, but I'm not--I leave it completely up to them; it's their
business, not mine.

>If one were really pro-CHOICE,
>he/she would be able to see the merits of all choices available, i.e.
>abortion, adoption, or keeping the child.

I think that most pro-choicers *do* see the merits of all choices available,
but on this forum, since adoption is often used as the good and wonderful
argument against abortion, you won't find many pro-choicers feeling that it's
as wonderful as the pro-lifers think.  There are problems associated with
making *any* choice, no one choice is inherently "better" than another--each
woman must make her own decision.  Most pro-lifers seem to think that
adoption is guilt-free and without risk; pro-choicers just like to point
out that anytime a pregnancy is brought to term there is risk, and studies
have shown that adoption is not as guilt-free as pro-lifers like to think.

WRT teens, I've heard statistics (from a program on CNN) that 4 out of 10
pregnant teens have abortions, and only 1 out of 10 give the child up for
adoption.  That means that fully half of pregnant teens keep their child--
often under extreme hardship.  The pro-choice camp would like to see those
teens be able to keep their babies with less hardship and are working to
make that a reality.  I can't speak for the pro-life crowd--but it does 
appear from their demonstrations, etc that they are primarily concerned with
getting the baby born and have a much less emphasis _after_ birth.

>Why do we never hear pro-choice
>advocates discuss the merits of keeping an unplaned child, regardless of any
>potential hardships?

Because the pro-life crowd does that so well.  I think that most pro-choicers
would like things to be easier on pregnant women--both financially and
emotionally, for her to make the kind of decisions she need to make.  I don't
think you'll find anyone here who thinks that a woman should always have 
an abortion (at least not seriously) but you will find people here who think
that a woman should always give birth.

>For example, there has been much discussion about the recent TV adds
>promoting the choice of adoption, yet form the "pro-choice" group we hear
>dispariging comments.

I did not respond to that thread because I was still compiling my opinion
of the ads in question.  While at first glance, they seem harmless enough,
and give you a warm, fuzzy feeling, I do question some things about them.
Who sponsors them?  I don't ever remember seeing that on any of them.  They
do seem to be a little one-sided (as all advertisements are).  I guess the
main problem that I have with any kind of advertisement wrt this issue is
that the ads can't go into the kind of detail that a woman needs to make
an informed decision.  You can't expect a woman to make this kind of life-
long decision based on a 30-second spot, can you?  Yet, this is indeed the
message that I believe the ad is sending.  The subliminal message that I
see is "give the baby up for adoption, provide a baby for a desiring family,
breed for that family".  I know it sounds harsh, but that is exactly the
sound bite I get from those ads.

>Thus I tend to believe that many in this news group
>are only in favor of one "choice".

Having been here over four years, I can tell you that is not true.

>'The adds are made to make us feel
>guilty...' I really have to wonder about a person's convictions if he/she
>can be made to feel guilty by a TV commercial.

Television is a very powerful forum.  If mothers can make you feel guilty,
then so can tv.

>Is there some underlieing guilt present to begin with? 

IMO, I don't think a person can be _made_ to feel guilty unless they are
unsure of their feelings.  However, when it comes to sex, it's so easy to
trigger those old puritanical feelings that we've been trying to overcome.
We still have a long way to go.

>If so, does it stem from the inherent
>understanding that the fetus IS a human life, and that abortion is contrary
>to maternal and paternal instinct?

One, there is no such thing as a "maternal instinct".  Studies have shown
that the "instinct" to mother is learned behavior in humans and closely
related animals.

Two, I don't think you'll get people to argue that the fetus isn't a human
life.  Whatever the fetus is, isn't the issue.

I think any and all of our guilt feelings wrt sex stem from our puritannical
background.  

>You may be thinking 'it is a traumatic
>and difficult decision to make...'.  In such a case, then the answer to the
>above questions is 'yes'.

I disagree.  I think any life decision is difficult and can be traumatic. 
Does this mean that we feel quilty about purchasing a home?  Nonsense.
Just because a decision is hard, that does not mean that the person feels
guilty over having to make it.

>In that regard, it seems to me that most
>arguments in favor of abortion are simply attempts at rationalization in
>one's own mind and are not specifically intended to convince/convert the
>pro-life people.

I would tend to believe that the pro-life arguments are more rationalization
than the pro-choice arguments.  I also don't think that there is much
convincing or converting going on in this forum.  I think that people's views
can be fine-tuned, and some amount of concession happens, but wholesale
changes of view?  That's rare.  I only know of one such case since I've
been here.

You see, it's kinda difficult for a person to switch sides, since the pro-life
force primarily sees the fetus and the pro-choice side primarily sees the 
woman.  Once a person begins to see the woman involved as a knowing and 
conscious individual, capable of making her own life decisions, then it becomes
possible to switch from pro-life to pro-choice.  Most of the cases that
I've heard about where a person switches from pro-choice to pro-life involve
some regret over previous abortions of their own and their attempt is to
"save" other womem from similar regret.  I've heard of no such regret when
the woman herself makes an informed decision, be it birth or abortion.

>I think his [Steve Franklin's] basic premise is correct: if one is
>willing to conform to traditional values and rules of basic morality, a
>great many problems facing society today can be avoided.

I, for one, am not willing to go back to so-called "traditional" values and
basic morality.  I do not believe in them as they put women at a distinct
disadvantage and place all the blame of failure on them.  I think that some
of the problems we face in society today are due to a change in values and
the insecurity that accompanies such a change.  I don't think "going back" is
the answer, but moving forward is.

>I was recently at
>a dinner party where an individual was telling how 'clever' she had been in
>her arguments in court against having her driver's license revoked for
>numerous speeding violations.  I couldn't help but think "wouldn't it be
>easier (and wiser) to just drive the speed limit"?

Is driving the speed limit an example of "traditional" values and morality?
I don't think so.  People have been pushing the speed limit ever since there
was one.  I can remember when the speed limit was 70, most people drove 75 or
80.  Studies have shown that most people will drive at whatever speed _they_ 
think is safe, regardless of the posted limit.


Jennifer




Newsgroups: talk.abortion