NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/58250

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 10.4 KB | 246 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!ra!usenet
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: NRL
References: <1993Jan15.233521. <[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:46:23 GMT
Lines: 234

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Alison Colman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>edu
>>(Alison Colman) writes:
>>
>>>As to whether the availibility of abortion will influence the sexual
>>>behavior of people in this country, it's pretty hard to predict. I know
>>>for myself, if abortion was made illegal in Pennsylvania, it wouldn't b
>
>>>much of a problem for me to go to Maryland to have an abortion. Yes, it
>>>might make me wary about having sex -- then again, it might not make mu
>h
>>>of a difference. I know myself I would be extremely careful about using
>>>effective birth control, regardless of the availability of abortion. So
>
>>>sorry to disappoint you, Edward. Making abortion illegal would not make
>me
>>>have sex less, personally.
>>
>>
>>Alison
>>
>>These things actually can be determined by proper survey techniques.
>>Interviews on Oprah with pregnant teenagers were very revealing. Abortio
> is so
>>widely accepted in our society that many of the kids came up with lines
>uch as
>>'... and besides, I could always get an abortion....' to explain away th
>ir
>>cavalier attitudes towards the consequences of sex.  Please don't misund
>rstand
>>me - a TV talk show doesn't prove a point - but neither do your particul
>r
>>personal reactions.
>>
>My personal reactions may mean nothing to you, Paul, but they mean
>something to me.  I can't speak for others because I'm not a mind reader,
>but I can certainly tell a pro-lifer how I would feel if abortion was made
>unavailable to me, and how it would affect my life. *You* may not care if
>my personal goals are never achieved, but I sure care. I feel that my
>concerns are very legitimate, and you're a fool if you think you can
> convince me otherwise.

First off, I have to apologize.  I went back over your original post and saw
you were responding to a claim Mr. Simmons made on how you personally would
react.  Of course it would be presumptuous to make a judgement about an
individual without knowing them.  At the same time one can poll the reaction of
hundreds of individuals and come up with a feeling for how people in general
would react to outlawing abortion.  I think its very reasonable to say that
many people would be less likely to engage in certain sexual behavior if
abortion were outlawed.

>
>As for those teenager's attitudes, so what? Would you rather have
>teenagers quaking in their boots at the merest thought of sex? Yes, that
>availability of abortion probably makes kids more comfortable about
>experimenting with sex. I don't see it as such a terrible thing, since I
>feel that it is perfectly normal for a teenaged person to want to try out
>their sexuality. That's why good comphrehensive sex ed programs are so
>important, and effective birth control should be cheap and readily
>available.
>

I agree almost totally with what you've said.  However, if some teenagers have
unprotected sex because they feel abortion is a safety net, then I think that
is very very wrong.


>I'm apparently much older than you are. Before RvW,
>>abortions were not readily available.  Teenage sex was extremely rare by
>>today's standards.  To my knowledge in my school of 3,000 kids there wer
>e no
>>pregnancies. In any case, thery were very rare. I knew some sexually
>
>How do you know? I would find it hard to believe that in the 50's and
>60's, teenaged kids weren't interested in sex. They were probably much
>more secretive about it. And I would also venture to say that many people
>closed their eyes to teenage sex. Have you ever seen the movie "heavy
>Petting"? It's a movie, made around 1990 or so, in which about two dozen
>famous personalities are interviewed, and they talk about their earliest
>sexual experiences. Most of the people interviewed were teenagers in the
>40's, 50's, and 60's, and it sure didn't sound likekids weren't having sex
>or getting pregnant. Things like that, I'll bet, were hushed up big time.

Again, I agree - believe me we were VERY interested in sex.  Things were
"hushed-up".  Still, with all the secrecy, kids weren't getting pregnant like
today.  If a girl suddenly dissappeared from class it would be very obvious.
The whole school would talk.  It just didn't happen like it does today.  I'm
sure there are hard irrefutable statistics on this.
>
>>promiscuous guys and they ALWAYS carried a condom in their wallets and u
>sed
>>them.  Believe it or not, the fear of getting a girl pregnant was very r
>eal to
>>these guys.
>
>What makes you think that the fear of getting a girl pregnant isn't real
>to guys in my generation? Believe me, Paul, that fear is very real -- at
>least to guys I know personally.
>

I'll accept your personal observation if you'll accept mine.  The "fear" of
getting a girl pregnant and having to deal with a born child has got to be less
imposing than the "fear" of getting a girl pregnant and having to deal with the
'hassles' of abortion.  Abortion sure has made life easier for the
irresponsible guys in this world.
>>
>>Again, this anecdote doesn't prove anything by itself, but what do you s
>upposeN
>>was behind the increased teenage abstinance back then?
>
>Like I mentioned before, I'm not so sure teenagers were actually having
>much less sex back then -- they were probably less open about it because
>of more repressive attitudes back then. And what is so great about
>scaring people out of having sex by making abortion illegal?

Go to the library and look at the incidence of teenage pregnancy over the
years.  Please, don't take my word for it (no one else here would :-} )
>
>>>
>>
>>>Going by what you said, can I reasonably assume that you are greatly in
>>>favor of all forms of contraceptives being easily obtainable, and
>>>inexpensive? As it stands now, some of the most effective forms of birt
>
>>>control, such as Norplant, are not available to me. I am not poor enoug
>
>>>to get Norplant through any public assistance program, but at the same
>>>time, I am not really able to drop $800-$900 dollars for an exam and a
>>>Norplant implantation. And due to the nature of my employment, I don't
>>>have health insurance right now. I would really like some of this to
>>>change. I would like Norplant, the Pill, and Depo-Provera to be cheaper
>
>>>and I would like to be able to get health insurance at a reasonable cos
>t.N
>>>Is this something you would like too, Edward?
>>
>>Many types of contraceptives kill the recently conceived human.  To many
>
>That is your opinion. That is not a fact, and that is also not something I
>believe.


I understand that.   My point was that the people you put down for being so
sensitive about certain types of contraceptives really DO believe that
abortifactants take a human life.  They may be 'wrong' in their beliefs but
they, like you, are entitled to those beliefs.

And another thing.  If any pro-lifer uses the line that childbirth should
somehow be punishment or just desserts for a promiscuous woman I would find
that personally offensive. I have called people on this before and I will
continue to do so.


>
>>pro-lifers this is no different than an abortion.  Please take this into
>>account before jumping to the conclusion that all pro-lifers are against
>all
>>birth control.
>
>I don't care if someone is opposed to birth control. If you don't want to
>use it, don't. But don't stop me from using it. I have the right to take
>care of myself, and I refuse to allow someone like you to take away that
>right.

Again, if you resent being lumped together a preconceived notion of how 'all'
women must react, please don't do it to me.  I think birth control crucial.

>>
>>
>>>
>>>In the meanwhile, though, what would you say to someone like me? Would
>you
>>>have the gall to tell me that I shouldn't be having any sex because I
>>>can't afford the best birth control out there? And I would rather not h
>ear
>>>you say to me, "there are lots of other things to do besides intercours
>se",
>>>as if I wasn't aware of that fact. If I want to have intercourse, it is
>>>not within anyone's right to tell me I shouldn't. Not to mention that I
>>>think that would be a really snotty motive for making abortion illegal
>-
>>>to try to curb the sexual habits of others.

I AGREE!

>>
>>I can't speak for Edward but I would say to you (as I would my daughter)
>
>>"Please please don't have sex until you are financially and mentally abl
> to
>>bear a child.  If you must have sex, find ways that don't involve introm
>ssion.
>> Insist that your partner use a condom and you a spermicide and barrier
>>contraceptive.  Ask your mother or school nurse or read a book on how to
>use
>>them.  Know that I will not allow you to have an abortion unless your li
>e is
>>threatened. "   Aside from the anti-abortion statement, is what I've sai
> so
>>unreasonable?
>>
>My parents were not hip on the idea of their three teenaged daughters
>having sex, either. My mom basically said to me that I should wait until
>marriage to have sex. My father was more pragmatic, and his attitude was
>that he would rather his daughters not become sexually active until
>marriage either, but he was aware that kids experiment. No, what you have
>just said is pretty typical of what a normal parent would say, I think.
>It's not too far off from what my parents said, aside from that fact that
>both my folks are strongly pro-choice.
>

>>
>Alison Colman
>
>
My point is this, Alison.  If you feel abortion is acceptable, fine.  I
disagree vehemently, but I won't put you down personally, or try to associate
you with one group or another to try to bolster my position.  Abortion is bad,
not because it lets women off the hook, not because it is some left-wing plot.
For me its bad because it kills, period.

If some or even most pro-lifers are foaming at the mouth religious zeolots who
you might find repugnant, that doesn't automatically make their views on
abortion bad. These issues should be argued on their own merrits, not on the
particular group espousing them.

I'd be interested in what you find out about teenage pregnancy rates.

- Paul