From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: Yet another cheap squabble about semantics
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 21:31:34 GMT

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
: 
: 	MOST ``PRO-LIFERS'' DO NOT HOLD LIFE SACRED.
: 


What precisely is it that you conclude from this?  

That because "most don't" therefore "some do" and we all should?
Or because "most don't", therefore nobody should?

And does this invalidate anything a pro-lifer may say to you?

For example, if I (a pro-lifer) say that "J H Woodyatt is not a Volkswagen
Beetle", would that mean that you must indeed be a VW beetle, because most
pro-lifers do not hold life sacred?

If I were to say "It is a sunny day in Munich", could you take that statement
at face value, do you think?  Or must I testify to every sunny day that ever
was, anyplace, otherwise there never was a sunny day in Munich, nor will
there ever be?

To put it another way, does the fact that pro-choicers do not for the most
part offer bullet-headed support for every choice that can be imagined invalidate 
their arguments any?  Personally, I'd say not, but how about you?

Do you think, that possibly someone like me might just seek to establish the
dignity and worth of a fetus, purely for its own sake, because I believe it
to be true and cannot in conscience say it is otherwise?    And _given_ that 
this is my aim, I am open to pragmatic suggestions for how to go about this.  
I am not one of those who thinks that legislation is necessarily a good solution 
here.  I believe in my heart, that if there _must_ be an abortion, then it
must be a safe one.  And I humbly suggest that this is where you, or an 
Adrienne Regard, or a Kristy Patterson, or a Ray Fischer, and many others, could 
possibly educate a guy like me, instead of wasting time on ad hominem attacks 
such as your statement above.  (not accusing Ray or Kristy of such).  It's 
possible, of course, that you cannot take even this statement at face value from 
me.  Call me hopeful, or a slow learner.  

Might I not equally well "punish women for having sex", by seeking to
contribute to a society where fewer rapes can happen, and none are tolerated,
where a rape crisis centre is not a charity?  If I seek to establish
better sex education, so that less abortions are needed for ignorance, or 
more widely available contraception, so that there are less unwanted 
pregnancies, or if I seek to establish a more just society, to put money in 
a woman's pocket, so that she _genuinely_ has a choice, what then?   Is it 
O.K. by you that ONE of my motives in so doing would be to restore dignity 
to a fetus, or am I still just one of those pro-life crazies, a fundie wannabe 
who thinks a fetus is a _what_????  I do not respect your means for solving
a problem, if it dehumanises something which is human, but have you taken out 
a patent on your motives?

Is it O.K. with you if I propose a law where parents are fined $1 after an
abortion, waived on inability to pay, _just_ to maintain the notion that a
fetus is a person, wronged by its parents.  By that I mean, not "Do you agree
with this?", but "Am I allowed say this?".  It seems from your post that I
am not, because most pro-lifers do not hold life sacred, huh?   But such a
precedent could be used to prevent fetal remains being melted down and made 
into soap, say, because a dead _person_ deserves better than that, no?   If 
on the other hand, I concede your claim that a fetus is not a person, or is 
less a person than you, how long do you figure that anyone could sustain an 
argument that fetal remains should not be made into soap?  How long before 
people would throw their hands in the air, and say "fuck it, make the soap".

I'm just trying to establish the circumstances where it's O.K. for me to say
"a fetus is worthy of dignity and respect", and what criteria I have to meet
before I can say that without having to listen to crap like "MOST PRO-LIFERS...", 
you know?

: -- 
: J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
: Space Systems/Loral
: 
: "there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
: machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
:                                                   -- Andrew Palfreyman
--
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de     "I heard about a couple livin' in the USA
                                 They traded in their baby for a chevrolet"
				   - Elvis Costello.  'Less than Zero'
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh