From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dust In The Wind)
Subject: Changing Opinions
Organization: Flames 'r' Us
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:34:03 GMT


Everybody is sick of politics and abortion, I'm sure, but this article is
about me.  Me personally.  I start in other places, but eventually we end
up inside my head.  If you're also sick of me, feel free to skip it.


Marty Helgesen writes about politicians changing their opinions, mentions a
few people who were pro-choice and are now pro-life, and then speaks about
Senator Al Gore:

> I see no basis for thinking that Gore's change was anything other than
> political opportunism when he decided to seek the presidency in 1988.

Well, I changed on this issue myself in the last 5 years.  I'm not running
for president, and I don't really care what other people think about me, so
I hope you'll accept that this was not a result of "political opportunism".


My first opinion about abortion was that it was "murder for the convenience
of the mother", which is obviously unacceptable and should be illegal.  I
believed this characterisation because I had been told, by politicians and
religious leaders both, that it was the truth.  There was evidence to prove
it, they said, and I trusted them.  The people who were "pro-abortion" just
refused to admit the evidence because they didn't want to give up their sin.

This was similar to many other claims, and I accepted those just as I accepted
this one.  My parents took somewhat different approaches.  My mother doesn't
believe Inerrancy, which I concluded was simply a mistake on her part, and my
father didn't speak much about political or theological ideas at all (he's
pretty quiet).

However, I eventually heard that people who don't believe Inerrancy are just
trying to avoid facing their sins.  Applying this argument to my mother did
not work; she readily admitted her sins when she wronged others, or to show
her children how easy it is to fall into wrong behaviour.  I had been told
that non-Christians don't believe the Bible is Inerrant because they didn't
want to submit themselves to God -- but nobody had prepared me for a Christian
who didn't believe the Bible was Inerrant.

I quickly realised that an argument of the form "those who disagree just want
to keep sinning" is bogus, even if it comes from an authority figure like your
Sunday School teacher.  (I later discovered logic classes, but only after
reinventing numerous wheels.)  Along the way, the important discovery that
"any human can be wrong" radically altered my view of the world.

With some new logical tools in hand, I set about examining all the arguments
which hinged on destroying a source's credibility before examining the
evidence.  Some started to fall.  Then I set about examining all the arguments
which went "XXX is true, and there is proof".  In particular, examining the
so-called `proof' to see if in fact it supported the claims.  Several of those
arguments came apart too.

Eventually, I got around to abortion.  It was murder, I had always been told,
and there was proof.  I'm not going to go into detail, and I doubt anybody
wants a detailed discussion of this so soon after the last one, so I'll just
say that the "proof" was anything but.  There were a half-dozen Scripture
verses, none of which addressed the issue directly and the rest of which were
vaguaries from poetical books.  Abortion was known at the time of Christ; he
could have said "abortion is murder, a fetus is as much a person as you are,
it should never be done".  But he didn't say anything like that at all.

And finally, even if he HAD, it wouldn't provide much support for legislation.
Since I strongly support the separation of Church and State, I oppose passing
laws based on unshared religious principles.  Some people find the medical
evidence about abortion completely convincing; others, like myself, find it
inconclusive.

Without clear Scriptural statements declaring abortion to be murder and
instructing Christians to impose Biblical standards on others, I cannot
justify action based on our collective ignorance.  I will not act, or support
action, except in the case of compelling and decisive medical evidence.  Such
evidence does not, so far as I know, exist.


I supported pro-life platforms because I had been told there was proof that
abortion was murder.  Such proof was not to be found.  I agreed with Christian
principles in legislation because I had been told that the Bible supported it.
Such support was not to be found.

I supported these ideas because people told me that they were justified.  When
justification was not offered, I withdrew my support of those ideas.  I am
still pro-life; I believe abortion is immoral.  But I no longer support the
use of legislation to fight abortion, so for all practical purposes that makes
me pro-choice.


I do not know how other people changed their opinions; I do know that it is
uncharitable to claim that someone flip-flopped on an issue like this just for
political gain.  Of course, insulting pro-choice people is not at all uncommon
for CHRISTIAns.  In another article, Mr Helgesen writes about Jesse Jackson:

> Dan Quayle is pro-life.  He opposes the slaughter of innocent babies.
> Rev. Jackson, who used to be pro-life, flipfloped and is now pro-abortion.
> He supports the slaughter of innocent unborn babies.

You cannot possibly know how offensive I find this, Mr Helgesen.  Several
politicians, several people who participate on this list, and I personally
have all stated repeatedly that we ARE NOT `pro-abortion', and that we DO
NOT "support the slaughter of innocent unborn babies".

(This is one of the things that makes me doubt the "facts" proffered by the
 pro-life camp.  They can't even get their titles straight, so I am dubious
 that they are any more careful with other "facts".  Not too long ago during
 a debate on MacNeil/Lehrer I watched a woman say "I am not pro-abortion, I
 am pro-choice", and then I watched her opponent say "The pro-abortion people
 are ..."  Somebody that incapable of understanding her native language has
 no business lecturing me about medical evidence.)

I know that it is too much to ask the pro-life people to extend common
courtesy to others, but I had expected better from you.  By misrepresenting
Rev Jackson, you may get nice rhetoric but you sacrifice your credibility.
You have said that you are a librarian, and you have spoken well of properly
using logic.  That caused me to overestimate you, a mistake I will not make
again.

I won't ask for an apology, because I have come to understand that pro-life
Christians don't care how offensive they are.  You, Kerry Stephenson, and
several other people are all set to excommunicate any follower of Jesus who
does not accept your opinions as Gospel.  And Inquisitors never apologise.

But I will ask you to consider how it looks when you go about misrepresenting
other people.  Given how often this issue has come up, and given that you seem
to be of about average intelligence, I find it hard to believe you don't
understand the difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion".

Above, you said that Jesse Jackson "supports the slaughter of innocent unborn
babies."  You haven't supported this claim, however.  The real irony in all
this is that the comments about Sen Gore come from something you wrote titled
"George Bush Did Not Lie".  In that post, you argued that Mr Bush went back on
a promise, but maybe it was just a mistake -- not necessarily a lie.

Now you should write one titled "Marty Helgesen did not lie", explaining why
you made such abusive and insulting claims about another Christian -- and, by
extension, all other followers of Jesus who don't accept your reasoning.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia