From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Date: 21 Nov 92 17:46:45 GMT
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <1992Nov16.180147.15583@ncsa.uiuc.edu>, jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue) writes:
>In article <1992Nov14.192117.13038@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes:
>>Having crossed keyboards with him previously I'm left with the
>>impression that he's worried that fetuses/zygotes/embryoes are
>>being turned into "sub-class" humans, but doesn't worry about
>>grown women falling into such a catagory, because that's thier
>>place.  (Ooooooh...putting on my asbetos suit now).
>
>How does this put women into a sub-class of humans?  Merely because we
>don't want to destroy something valuable?  I thought that our sphere of
>rights only extended as far the sphere of someone else's rights.  Ok, you
>don't feel that "fetuses/zygotes/embryoes" have rights.  Slave owners
>felt the same way.  If you don't like the comparison to Nazis & slave owners,
>tough.  These are *real* examples of where sub-classes of humans were taken
>to extreme measures.

Let's see... You implied that an embryo/zygote/fetus was of more "inherent"
value than a grown woman?  Sounds like sub-classing woman to me.  Really,
did that whole discussion on setting value on things (and concepts) escape
you?  The fetus has NO *inherent*, *objective* value, only that which the
mother (and possibly father) places on it.  And this crap about slave
owners and Nazis is tired and sad, as I've pointed out before the cases
aren't equivalent.  If you still truely believe so, please answer the
following question with a simple yes or no with no "if", "and", or "buts":

Do I (Jeffrey L. Sue) do honestly believe that a 4 cell zygote is of
equal value, in all senses, as a fully grown woman?

>However you missed my point completely.  If we allow for *any* sub-class
>of humans, we devalue our humanity to ourselves.  I feel that this is a
>big mistake, witness the previous examples, as well as the growing racism
>and division in European countries (Arian nations, et. al.).

Answered "yes" above?   Then you truely are a fetal idolatry type and
I don't think there's much hope for you.

Answered "no"?  Then haven't you have declared that zygote sub-human?

Oh, please don't try and cloak yourself in a false air of superiority
by delcaring your opposition as closet racists.

>>-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)
>>
>>PS. Jeffrey, I'm still waiting for those explict, concrete rules
>>under which you'd allow abortions.  There must be some cases since
>>you keep professing that you're not out to abolish them.  Your
>>guidelines should be less controversial than Roe v. Wade that
>>they replace, so that we can all end this silly little discussion
>>and get back to our fetal worship. 
>
>I didn't say I'd disallow *any* abortions.  Actually what I believe as
>a more positive approach for our society would be to build an attitude
>such that family, friends, institutions etc., will be willing to
>support the decisions, even if the a decision is to have an abortion.

Okay, now I'm confused.  You claim that allowing abortions is setting
up a sub-class of humans; and that to do so would be on the same level
of evil as Hitler and slavery.  But then you claim not to be trying
to outlaw them.  I honestly don't think there is some group out here
in the real world convincing women purposely get pregnant and then
to have abortions just for the control-freak rush.  So what's your point?
  I too want to see ...
a more positive approach for our society would be to build an attitude
such that family, friends, institutions etc., will be willing to
support the decisions, even if the a decision is to have an abortion.
....
And that's why I work so hard to keep abortion a legal medical 
procedure.  I see nothing wrong with women staying pregnant if they
so choose.  But unlike those that you seem to be aligning with I don't
think it my place to harrange/harrass woman out of making the decision
to end a pregnancy either.

>However I feel that some abortions would not be performed with a more
>supportive culture.  Some abortions are performed, I believe, because
>the women involved would not be supported if they chose to carry the
>pregnancy to term.  After the birth there are options available and
>many people willing to be parents, if that a young woman would choose not
>to keep the baby after birth.  A nine-month stint of "pure hell" for
>pregnancy may seem drastic, however we have had millions of people die
>in wars fighting for what we "valued" - and that is much worse than 9 months.

Oh, so woman who are forced to stay pregnant by the anti-abortion crowd
should consider themselves conscripts into the "birth army"?  Sorry,
but I'm a big believer in the all-volunteer services as well.  Lest you
consider me one of those pinko-commie-draft-dodgers: I considered
going to one of the academies...until I found out how political the
entrance requirements were (need a recommendation by a congress-critter).

Supportive culture is all fine and good; but I have to ask you who's
going to pay for all those babies for 18 years.  Some/many of those
abortions are because the woman got pregnant and as much as she might
want the child, she was adult enough to know that she (or they, if it
was a couple) would be unable to support that child.  Let's see, this
country has run up a huge deficit and social services accounts for, say,
a third of the budget (I can never keep budget numbers straight).  So,
I think that sort of rules out gov't support; we as a society can't
afford it in real honest-to-god dollars.  Private support?  Fine.  Set
up your own charity; I might even send some $$.  But it would hardly
make a dent if all those abortions were indeed carried to term.

Or are you arguing that we should force all those potential dead-beat
dads out there into 18 years of inservitude? :-)  Maybe the woman
saw that having an abortion was a better societal choice than making
her life miserable (an unwanted child, potentially ruining her life
and career) and making the potential father's life miserable (turning
him into a "walking wallet", since she couldn't affort to keep the
child in daycare if she could get a job and she'd need a job if she
isn't to rely on the "walking wallet") and she realized that adoption
is all fine and dandy, if it worked, but there are plenty of children
already waiting and adding one more the the long line wouldn't be a
very supportive act.

>Yes, I personally feel that it's best to protect the fetus whenever
>possible because I feel that our society is hurt in inmeasurable ways
>by dismissing life so casually.  I feel that the use of abortion as a
>means of birth control by some, instead of using other,
>less-destructive means, is not a positive thing for us.  It's not
>"fetal worship" as you like to argue (but then you like to throw out
>inflammatory statements as if they add meaning to your arguments).

Oh, I agree with you on the part about contraceptives being a better
choice for birth control than abortion.  But that's mostly because
they are a less "intrusive" medical procedure/intravention.  That's
also why I whole approve of Planned Parenthood, since (as I understand
it from the outside) that too is their mission; but I'll make clear
I also support thier goal of making abortion available for whatever
reason (forgotten as well as failed contraceptive).  This just argues
the point I always make:  we need MORE sex education, not less.

I say there are plenty of societal ills that essentially lessen the
value of life, that have nothing to do with abortion/birth.  Homelessness,
the poor, illiteracy and poor education...  Why don't you put your
efforts into something productive that will honestly help real, live,
living-breathing, can-see-hear-touch-able human beings.  

>Jeff Sue   

-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)