Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:33:10 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Robert E. Lee and Darren Provine

Darren,

I am sorry you were offended by what I wrote, but you seem to have
misunderstood a basic point.  Describing someone as pro-abortion does
not mean claiming that he views abortion as a positive good and
rejoices in the prevalence of abortion.  There are people who appear
to be like that, of course, such as abortionists who make large
amounts of money from their trade, Communist officials in China who
use compulsory abortion as a means of population control, and their
"pro-choice" supporters in the west such as Molly Yard, the former
President of the National Organization for (Some) Women.  (What ever
happened to choice for Chinese women?)  However that does not apply
to most people who call themselves "pro-choice."  The point is that I
am talking about the effects of their actions, not the state of their
minds or their souls.

Robert E. Lee was pro-choice on slavery.  He really was.  He was
personally opposed to slavery, but he believed that states had a
right to secede from the Union.  He therefore joined the Confederate
Army and served as a brilliant general, fighting against the Union
Army. While there were other causes and issues in the Civil War it
was a war about slavery.  Lee fought on the side of the slaveholders.
Regardless of his personal feelings his actions were pro-slavery.
This can be seen more clearly by considering the outcome of the war.
The Union won.  The states that tried to secede were kept as members
of the Union.  Slavery was abolished.  If Lee had been successful in
his military campaigns against the Union, the  Confederacy would have
won its independence.  Slavery would have been maintained.

You object to my saying that Jesse Jackson supports the slaughter of
innocent unborn babies.  (You do not say what you think of Jesse
Jackson comparing Vice President Quayle to King Herod, which state-
ment prompted my remark, but that does not affect my answer.)  Babies
are being slaughtered every day by abortionists.  The law permits
this slaughter, and Rev. Jackson supports that law.  Whatever his
personal feelings may be, his actions support legal abortion just as
Robert E. Lee's actions supported slavery.

I don't know what Jesse Jackson thinks about public funding for
abortion.  My guess is that he supports it, but that is just a guess.
However, I do know of other liberal Democrats, some of whom say they
are "personally opposed to abortion, but ...". who definitely support
public funding for abortion.  They do not merely say that the govern-
ment should not outlaw abortions.  They say that the government
should use taxpayers' money to pay for abortions.  Whatever their
personal feelings or beliefs may be, their actions support abortion.

Someone might say, "Well, okay, they actively support abortion, but
if they want to be called 'pro-choice' why not go along with them?"
There are several reasons.

"Pro-choice" is a public relations term.  It is an attempt to load
the argument by putting it entirely in terms of the mother and her
choice, while ignoring her unborn child.

"Pro-choice" is a euphemism, like "terminate" and "product of concep-
tion".  Supporters of legal abortion should not be able to conceal
the bloody reality of abortion behind a cloak of euphemisms.

It is impossible to be "pro-choice"  One can only be for or against
certain people being free to make and act on certain choices.  People
who are "pro-choice" on abortion frequently oppose the idea of other
people being able to exercise choice in other areas.

I wrote,  "I see no basis for thinking that Gore's change was any-
thing other than  political opportunism when he decided to seek the
presidency in 1988."  I did not say definitely that he had no other
reasons, I said I see no basis for thinking he did.  One reason I
said that is that, so far as I know, he has never offered any reason
for his change, except perhaps some talk about "choice".  However, if
abortion really is the killing of an innocent human being, it is not
a legitimate choice.  I am not aware of Gore ever saying anything
like, "I used to think that abortion is killing human beings, but now
I am convinced that it is not, and here's why ..."

In fact, now Gore is saying that he never made a change, that he was
always pro-choice.  I have just received some material in the mail
about Gore from the Ad Hoc Committee in Defense of Life.  It points
out that when Gore was a Congressman, from a strongly pro-life dis-
trict, he had a nearly perfect pro-life voting record.  He did not
immediately change his views when he got to the Senate.  In a debate
in Dallas on Feb. 18, 1988 he attacked Dick Gephardt, who had previ-
ously changed from pro-life to "pro-choice", saying, "I'm going to
lay it on the line, Dick.  The next president has to be someone who
the people believe will stay with his convictions."

Now Gore is a sponsor of the "Freedom of Choice Act".

To quote from an Ad Hoc Committee press release:

    On July 12th "The Week with David Brinkley," Sam Donaldson asked
    Gore in what circumstances he would support federal funding of
    abortion.  Gore answered, "The circumstances debated have in-
    volved rape and incest and where the life of the mother is in
    jeopardy.  And you're absolutely right, Sam, that I have voted
    against federal funding for abortions, except in those circum-
    stances such as the ones I outlined.  And that is my position."

    NOT TRUE.  At least five times in his House career Al Gore voted
    _ against _ funding abortions in cases of rape or incest.  Back
    then Gore would only accept the life of the mother exception.
    Further, he consistently voted _ against _ the District of Colum-
    bia being able to use even its own funds for abortions.

Gore's statements deny he changed, rather than explaining why he
changed.  That fact increases the likelihood that Gore's reasons were
political and nothing more.

Marty Helgesen