NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48512

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-18 | 6.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!utgpu!utorvm!ryevm.ryerson.ca!admn8647
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tuesday, 17 Nov 1992 21:25:45 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject:    Holtsinger on Harassment & Health
Lines: 149

In article <[e-mail]> Bill Overpeck writes:
>>In <[e-mail]> Linda Birmingham writes:
>
>>Elizabeth dear in or out of context supporting jail
>>terms for women who obtain banned abortions is the
>>antithesis of the pro-choice movement.
>>
>>imo, your demand to criminalize a medical procedure places
>>an undue psychological burden on those women who must obtain
>>the procedure by forcing them to justify why their abortion
>>should not be viewed as murder and ultimately requiring women
>>to literally plead for their lives.
>
>Oh, nonsense.  Beth is very clearly discussing the decision
>to abort *viable*, third trimester humans.  At the risk of
>focusing on *them* for a moment, these would be fetuses that
>have an excellent chance of survival when disconnected from
>the woman *intact*.

You of course have evidence that women in Canada, where
there is no abortion legislation, are wantonly killing
viable fetuses without giving this fetus a second thought?
You have, I assume, evidence that supports the premise that
if there is no legislation health care providers will travel
around the US happily aborting and then killing 39 week
old fetuses on the whims of a woman?  If not, I suggest it
is your premise that is nonsense.

>Requiring women to make the big "choice"
>within four or five months of discovering they are pregnant
>in no way represents an "undue psychological burden".

Prior to decriminalization of abortion in this country,
women had to face abortion tribunals.  These tribunals
consisted of 3 to 5 doctors.  Women were questioned
as to why they required an abortion, even though their
own doctor had recommended the procedure.  Women stated
that this procedure created distress, was humiliating
and an invasion of privacy and some describe how they
were made to feel guilty at choosing their own health
over the fetus.

Name one other accepted medical procedure where the
patient must undergo a trial to justify their receiving
the treatment.

Name one other accepted medical procedure where the
patient must argue, to themselves and others, that they
are not criminals.

Do you think a person placed in such a situation would
not be unduly burdened?

>>Legislating fetal rights will cause further restrictions
>>to women in the work place and reduce the opportunity
>>for equality.  Pregnant women have already been victimized
>>by court ordered invasive treatments to "protect" the
>>fetus.
>
>Do the quotes around "protect" suggest that the courts
>really had some other intent?

In several of the cases where court orders to force women
to undergo c-sections were obtained, the women managed
to give birth without incident - after going into hiding.
A review of 36 court ordered c-sections, found that in only
two did the doctors feel the fetus was in serious medical
danger.

There have been cases were pregnant woman were denied
medical treatment because the treatment would harm
the fetus, in at least one case both mother and fetus
died because of such a decision.

Fertile women have been denied jobs and in the case of
American Cyanamid women were given the choice of
unemployment or sterilization.

Tell me Mr. Overpeck do you think any of those woman suffered
an undue psychological burden due to fetal protectionism?

>>You my dear are trying to use a sledge
>>hammer to swat at flies and in the process this will
>>create additional disadvantages for women.
>
>It disadvantages women to require that they make their
>decision within four or five months?

As someone apparently familiar with denial, Mr. Overpeck,
how unlikely do you think it would be for a frightened
teenager to wait a month or two to be sure she is pregnant
before making any decisions?  How likely would it be for a
victim of sexual abuse to deny not only the possible outcome
but the act itself?

Menopausal women may not know until the third or fourth
month that they are pregnant.  Drug addicts may not know
until the third or fourth month that they are pregnant.
Anorexic women may not know until the third or fourth
month that they are pregnant.  Women taking birth control
may not know they are pregnant, etc. etc. etc.

Then add the time required to find a doctor, find the
money, make arrangements.  Yes Mr. Overpeck such
proposals could disadvantage some women.

>>Oh btw Elizabeth dear, the only heros I have are women.
>
>While such an assertion is probably just coincidental, some
>might wonder if this doesn't represent a bit of anti-male
>sentiment...

Why Mr. Overpeck?

>>wrt Mr. Keegan I just happen to agree with his position
>>on abortion and feel that the repeated accusations of
>>harassment are rather lame attempts at avoiding the
>>issue of why there is no need for legislation.
>
>Sadly, there are a whole host of activities that should
>require no legislation as a deterrent.  Nevertheless, to
>do otherwise in the case of late-term pregnancies is to
>sanction the arbitrary killing of a viable human.  I'm
>quite sure that the vast majority of women do not require
>such statutory prohibitions.  Neither does that majority
>require statutes prohibiting the killing of newborns.

This is your slippery slope argument Mr. Overpeck.
If the majority of women and doctors do not need it
then there is no need for it.  If a woman decided just
for the hell of it to abort at 35 weeks and if she
could find a health care professional willing to perform
the procedure no law in the land will stop either of
them.  Legislation into medical decisions between competent
patients and doctors is an unnecessary intrusion and in the
case of the patient an infringement on their bodily security.
You may be content in allowing the government to dictate
what is done to your body, but I doubt many others would
would be so willing.




Linda
--
The solution is not simply to say the conflict must cease,
but to eradicate the root cause of violence and suffering.
Hunger and poverty have no other name but slow war.
  Rigoberta Menchu, 1992 Nobel Peace Prize winner