The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 11, Thread 4.

1. Social Engineeringing
Tue, Dec 22, 1998 - 7:54 AM/EST
niasis

This is in response to the urging of several people in our group to talk about issues other than Clinton's impeachment. Its also an issue I strong but ambivalent feelings. No opinions yet.

Recently, I read about this woman who has started a personal crusade on behalf on unborn crack babies. Her method? She offers the drug-addicted mothers $200 to abort the fetus. Her argument? Consider the quality of life of the child, should it be born with probable birth defects. Also, consider the cost to society (the mother is certainly not going to support the child!) of raising this child. Many women are taking this offer.

This is my dilemma : I strongly believe in a woman's right to choose and also that we have a responsibility to bring a child into a caring, nurturing environment with all the opportunities to succeed. On the other hand, does society have the right to influence which child may live and which may not? Also, what of the women who repeatedly use abortion as a means for contraception, or in this case, even to support a terrible habit?

Another doozy. In a recent "discussion", a colleague suggested a method for administering welfare. Given the premise that when on welfare, one should be cautious about the size of ones's family (any arguments on this?) shouldn't we just take it one step further and actually require that no welfare parent may have more children than they started with when they enter the system. Also, given that this is clearly an income distribution, those who "give" may dictate how the recipient may prioritize its uses. Of course, this is not like the govt. dictating personal ethics, because people always have a *choice* of accepting or rejecting welfare. Any thoughts or comments? I am deeply troubled by this issue as well because at the end, its not the welfare parents that are held to ransom here, its the children. And how on earth do you enforce this? But how else do you break a pattern of dependence with no responsibility (we are only talking about those who do not attempt to break the cycle, btw).

Good morning!

2. Social engineering gone bad...
Tue, Dec 22, 1998 - 12:28 PM/EST
DesertSpirit

Niasis, you have raised some quite contentious and thought-provoking issues. I too feel strong ambivalence about abortion and welfare reform.Both issues touch the depths of my soul. My "second job" (the one that I enjoy doing but doesn't pay the bills as my first job does) is to serve as a psychotherapist specializing in women's counseling; I ask for no compensation when I suspect a woman can not affort to pay.

I pity the woman who offers money to drug-addicted women in exchange for aborting a fetus. Her concern for the quality of the child's life is admirable, and yet all she winds up doing is promoting the death of an unborn child. I wish she would devote her efforts and money on the root causes: proactive prevention, both the drug addiction and the unwanted pregnancy. Placing aside the emotion-riddled philosophical debate of when a fetus is actually a life, let's focus on the woman. There should be no doubt that a late-term abortion is a physical and emotional attack on a woman, a scar that all humankind (women AND men) must bear when this occurs. You might believe, "Who does this MAN think he is, telling women what they should do with their own bodies?" After the pro-choice and pro-life advoates return to the comfort of their homes following a rally of fellow believers, I am the man..NO...the PERSON who stays and helps the woman who has undergone an abortion to pick up the pieces of her shattered life. I do not judge the woman for her actions, but merely am there to provide emotional support through therapy. Where are you?

3. Social Engineering
Tue, Dec 22, 1998 - 1:49 PM/EST
Chrisj

I don't like the idea that someone is offering cash as an incentive for someone else to have an abortion. I do support the idea that all women, especially those in difficult circumstances, have available to them the option to abort the child. That is, they are provided free access to those services, which would also include counseling, drug rehab, job training, etc. I certainly agree with DesertSpirit that the best solution is to be proactive.

I also believe we to support these women should they decide not to have an abortion. The tragedy are the children who are born into difficult circumstances. In a land were everyone is supposed to be created equal, how can one argue that a child born addicted to crack or to an impoverished, struggling family have equal opportunities as another child born to a family that has the means to live in a neighborhood with better schools, less crime, more food on the table, and so on?

If by social engineering you mean decisions about who is born and who is not, I think certainly no one except the parents have that right. But I do think society has a very real interest in the welfare of all the children in this country. If that means support for all the programs mentioned above, so be it.

4. selfishly, for clarity's sake...
Tue, Dec 22, 1998 - 1:50 PM/EST
senryu

1) My perspective: I'm a woman who conceived accidentally *while using birth control* and chose to carry the pregnancy to term, even though I was offered money for the abortion AND a safe home while I recovered from the trauma. I was lucky. I had a good, open, adoption agency on my side, and the baby's father was decent and emotionally supportive (although not able to contribute financially). Medicaid paid for my prenatal care and hospital bills. Other aid was not involved. I gave my daughter to a couple who I would have been proud to befriend if the situation had been... normal. The situation with drug-addicted mothers is, I admit, far from normal.

2) Given the failure rate of even the most effective forms of birth control, is it reasonable to lump all accidental pregnancies into the category of "Caused By Dumb Mothers?" Isn't it dictating the terms upon which a woman can use her own body if we just say, "don't exercise your sexuality?"

3) Once someone begins to argue from "quality of life," whose definition of "quality" is used? Does it even matter?

Another personal note: It's none of my business, in the final analysis, what a woman *chooses* to do when she is in her right mind, as drug addicts are not... If a case comes to my attention, if a woman comes to me for help, I will do everything I can to make an abortion unnecessary. But if she then chooses to go ahead with an abortion, it is not my duty to disapprove. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" isn't easy, but it's easier than bearing the burden of anger and disgust toward someone who is doing the best she knows how.

...DesertSpirit, hugs to you; I wish I had someone like you around when I needed it. Accept my gratitude for what you do in the place of someone who has hurt you with her ingratitude. Thank God you're there....

7. RE: in the face of which all arguments fail
Tue, Dec 22, 1998 - 3:46 PM/EST
Trennis

Senryu - That's it exactly. You summed up my feeling perfectly. I believe very strongly in a woman's right to choose, but when I hear stories like this one I can't help but inwardly cringe, despite my convictions. There is a fine line between making a personal abortion decision and pandering your body for money. One I firmly support and will defend, but the other...? I'm not sure. It's sticky.

8. Social Engineering
Tue, Dec 22, 1998 - 4:22 PM/EST
SNE18

Hi! I think that it is important that we look at what's going on here with both issues. (1) Abortion of a crack baby - hmmm. I do strongly believe in the woman's right to choice, but to give her money to have an abortion is crazy. What will she learn from this - nothing - except I can go get pregnant again and go get another $200 to get rid of it anyway I want. Why doesn't this woman take that $200 and use it to teach prevention and protection. I mean this is ridiculous. I have heard it all - women on crack don't need money they need a good swift kick in the butt and some training and help out of their situation. Of course it is easier than said, but if there were a real EFFORT and not a bunch of talk then there would be a different world. I know that there are some of you who are outraged by this woman, but the sad part of this is not the crack women, but this woman who is giving her money to support their abortion to support their bodies being abused and to support their habit. I feel sorry for her.

9. Children and responsibility
Tue, Dec 22, 1998 - 5:56 PM/EST
Larry W.

I am surprized that no one has mentioned the news of octuplets born to a Texas woman. I am bothered by the increasingly commonly held principle that if technology makes it possible, we ought to doit. Raising 8 children is an impossible task, no matter how you think it through. Many of those children will have severe health problems; some will have psychological problems. I find giving attention to my own two children taxing beyond belief at times: How can two parents possibly manage divide their attention among eight?

Just because science makes it possible doesn't make it desireable. Just because Congress hasn't passed a law doesn't make it the moral thing to do. When do "America's consumers" start taking responsibility for their actions? (Please, I'd like to know!)

(My wife and I visited a fertility clinic seven years ago. I left the place almost in tears: The doctors we dealt with clearly played on the emotions of women unable to conceive. I found the whole experience disgusting. I told my wife that there were many children in our world who needed our attention and love. I was willing to adopt, but she wanted to conceive a second child. Fortunately, my wife finally got what she wanted [after we gave up trying...].)

Larry W.

10. If technology makes it possible...
Tue, Dec 22, 1998 - 6:37 PM/EST
senryu

... we ought to do it? OK, how can we manage to dissent to that without sounding like, "If God had meant us to fly, He would have given us wings?" :) No offense. The answer, I guess, is so obvious I feel ashamed to reiterate it, "personal responsibility... if you have it, use it; if you don't have it, you will before much longer whether you like it or not."

Good point about the octuplets. The truth is, I haven't mentioned it because... I don't even want to *think* about eight babies. Eight! Ouch. Had my head in the sand on that one. And it's here in Houston, yet.

I'm going out on a limb, almost completely unfounded here, and raising a question: To what extent did the doctors encourage the couple to try to have *all* the babies because it was a circus trick, a one-in-a-billion, a medical-career-making spectacular?

One of my stepsisters was the earliest known preemie to ever have survived in the Georgia hospital where she was born; her parents wanted to allow the sick little girl to die peacefully (not something I can make a judgement on, but friends, it was practically a *miscarriage*). The hospital told the parents that they would be charged with *criminal neglect* if they refused to authorize "lifesaving" treatments, and they would take the baby away from them and treat it *anyway*. These treatments had the ultimate effect of leaving the baby blind and severely retarded. Evidence indicates that she wouldn't have been blind, at least, without the "heroic" efforts.

The little girl, now a teenager (in years at least), is loved by her brothers and sisters, has perfect pitch, can remember almost every song she hears, and has a singing voice that would make all of us music majors cry.

"If technology makes it possible..."

I'll start a new thread within the next few days on an issue that's very close to that question, but I need to get my ducks in a row first :)

Peace to all....

11. social engineering
Tue, Dec 22, 1998 - 6:45 PM/EST
niasis

I couldn't wait to see your responses to my questions - and its very heartening to get the compassionate, thoughtful reactions that have come in so far. First of all, let me also thank you, DesertSpirit, for your spirit *and* actions - what a terrific, supportive, non-judgemental person, you are!

Some of my thoughts - my first reaction was more outrage (than pity) at the woman who thought that she could try to dictate, with her money, the fate of an unborn child. Although the crack addict is also exercising a choice to accept the money, she is probably less capable of making a rational choice, given her addiction. I agree that I would much rather see the resources go to better education and counseling. I also believe that there are other, stricter ways of dealing with a situation... for instance, (and this is admittedly draconian!) using illegal drugs is still a punishable offense... if a drug-addict were to become pregnant and choose to keep the baby, then she can be imprisoned (as a last resort) for use of illegal drugs and kept clean until the baby is delivered. In terms of loss of personal priveleges, this is one scenario I find least unconscionable. Of course, the pragmatist in me scoffs that this option could ever be practically implemented not to say anything about any inalienable rights of the woman that may be violated.

Senryu, I am pleased to note that not one of the others have passed any value judgement on the women who are unfortunate victims of an accidental pregnancy. It was never even an issue for me - reasonable women in unreasonable circumstances find themselves making a choice that they arrive at with (hopefully) the support of their families, doctor, and friends that is in their best interest. I am a strong advocate of a woman's right to choose precisely because I am aware of the frailties in life.

More coming....