From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Pro-life v. anti-abortion (was something to do with adoption)
Summary: Terminology explained -- $.05
Date: 23 Nov 92 03:04:49 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>ejhupper@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Huppertz) writes:

>>For the last few years I have watched the anti-abortion factions
>                                                ^^^^^^^^
>Don't you mean Pro-Life or should we refer to Pro-Choice people as 
>anti-life. This is ridiculus...

Neither. (And yes, it is ridiculous.  Why can't we just accept the
other's sides name(s) for themselves and not get all heated up over side
issues?)

"Pro-life" is a null-content term.  Everyone (with VERY rare exceptions)
is pro-life to some degree, whether it's their own life solely or the
lives of others as well.  However, it's the term chosen by those who
oppose legalized abortions, and I'm willing to stick with it.

"Anti-abortion" is an accurate description of the people who call
themselves "pro-life".  It has the distinct advantage of not bringing in
all sorts of side issues.

"Pro-choice" does NOT imply support for abortions.  It implies support
for the legalisation of abortions, and that is different.  There are
quite a few people on t.a. (Steve Adams, for one) who personally oppose
abortion but don't want it made unavailable solely because of their
beliefs. (Steve, if I've misrepresented you, I apologize.)

"Anti-life" describes a sociopath.  That doesn't describe any but an
incredibly small subset of people, and their views on abortion have no
relevance.

"Pro-abortion" assumes that a person favors abortion, either as the
solution of choice or just as a possible solution.  Not many people
describe themselves this way, so I may be misrepresenting their views:
Gordon, would you care to clarify?

"Anti-choice" is equivalent to "pro-force"; both describe the attitude
that pregnant women MUST give birth.  It's a militant wing of the group
which calls itself "pro-life".

There...have I left anyone out?  All of the above is MIO (my informed
opinion), so if you want to take issue, I shan't be offended.

>Please... Not all of us do these things I am very much Pro-Life but I
>will Not resort to violence to get my views accepted.

You're to be applauded, then.

>>I can't understand why all these people who stamp their feet and
>>scream about the horrors of abortion don't switch their tactics and
>>turn their efforts toward encouraging adoption as an alternative to
>>abortion.  Nobody would publicly discourage such a campaign, 
>>especially if it were handled as well as Nancy Reagan's "Just Say
>>No to Drugs" or MTV's "Rock the Vote."

>Sounds like a good idea.. Do you know where one can get in touch with 
>others that would be interested in something like this.

Here or in alt.adoption, I'd imagine.  At least, these groups would be a
good starting point. (I'd like to interject, however, that adoption is
not a viable alternative for all people.  Some women, especially,
perhaps, single women, can't afford to take several months off of their
job to have a baby, even if they give the baby up for adoption.  Some
employers, despite federal law, will fire the mother or otherwise bring
down negative consequences upon her.)

>There is a very good reason. I went to a Catholic school to and they did
>not tolerate actions that might cause one to get pregnant it was stated
>in or handbook clear as day.Get Pregnant get kicked out. It may the
>wrong course of action but it definetly cut down on risky behavior.

"Sex in the schools -- next time, on Donahue."  :-)

Seriously, it's not the business of the school to regulate what goes on
during the students' own time.  It *is*, however, the business of the
Church, in the Church's not-at-all-humble opinion.  A public school that
tried this would get its ears waxed, however.

>>The one thing I absolutely cannot fathom is this society's intolerance
>>toward giving a child up for adoption, in a time when that would be
>>an answer to a good many problems.  

Whoa -- where did this come from?  Adoption is not a panacea.  Neither is
abortion.  Claiming otherwise for either of them does a grave disservice
to your argument.  As I said above, not everyone can afford to wait the
time required to give a baby up for adoption.

>Add a punch for me too will ya.

What was that about not being violent, Jeff?

[guy knocked his GF up, they decided to have the baby and put it up for
adoption ove protests of loved ones]

>You made a very good choice and the best for all concerned.

In your opinion.  Your opinion doesn't matter unless you're involved,
though -- it's the choice of the people who ARE involved, and ultimately
the woman.

(I'm not saying I disagree, Jeff.  I'm not saying I agree, either.  I'm
saying that neither one of us known enough about it to form a meaningful
opinion, and that it isn't our choice in any event.)

>PS. Could someone tell me if I have a .sig quote?

Yes, I could, and yes, you do.  :-)

--
--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post
  andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu                        would make even less sense.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame