Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 09:44:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: prolifers and informed discussion

> >Let's see--the fact that the people who advocate restrictions or
> >outright prohibitions on abortion are unable to explain WHY we should do
> >so, without relying on theology, or to refute significant arguments on
> >the other side, is not a reason to refrain from enacting their desires
> >into law.  Is that what you're saying?
>
> I disagree with the claim about their arguments, but even if I agreed
> with it, I note that no one else is held to that standard.  I'm
> perfectly willing to agree that the currently accepted standard is
> inadequate, but see no reason to treat pro-lifers any different.

So as long as anyone does anything for a stupid reason, nobody else
should be criticized for offering equally stupid reasons.  Nice.  But
you may recall that I was trying to explain to Missy why her movement
has such a poor reputation, and to give her suggestions as to how that
reputation might be improved.  She is the one who feels poorly served
by the current state of the abortion debate.

> >Thank you for making my point for me.  Although women who contemplate
> >abortion rarely treat the death of the fetus in as cavalier a fashion
> >as you treat the death of an adult woman.
>
> As I treat the death of an adult woman?  Get a grip.  I'm one of the
> few admitted pro-abortion people on the list.
>
> Let's use the exaggerated estimates; 10k women for 1.5 million
> fetuses.  How many feti is an adult woman worth? 10?  100?
> 1000?  1.5 million?

I'll try to explain this.  A fetus dies in an abortion for the same
reason that a person who needs a transplant dies if they can't find a
willing donor--because the rights of all of us preclude forcing some
of us to give up the right to control our own bodies.  But a woman who
is injured or killed by an illegal abortion dies because someone has
decided to use the law to carry out a behavior modification experiment.
You might as well try to "encourage" safer driving by taking the
seatbelts out of cars.

As for the "pro-abortion" position:  for the record, I find the idea of
forcing someone to have an abortion as contemptible as the idea of
forcibly preventing her from having one.

> Yes.  My father used to work with 7th graders, a surprising fraction
> of which were either pregnant or parents.  Before then he worked with
> older kids.  I've hung around such kids myself.  Some of my friends
> did pregancy counseling (abortion services).
>
> The vast majority were "I didn't care if I got pregnant" and "I wanted
> to get pregnant" and the pre-pregancy attitudes were similar; knowing
> how to not get pregnant can't affect those pregnancies.  (One of the
> really heartbreaking reasons was "I wanted someone who would like
> me".)

Well, the experience of entire nations tends to contradict your
experience with a small, geographically restricted group of seventh-
graders.  I find it quite plausible that if these kids had been given
enough information to help them make sense out of what was happening to
their bodies, they might have had a bit more self-confidence and self-
respect.  And if they were taught how enormous the task of child-rearing
really is, they might have thought twice about taking it on so young.

The other problems these kids are facing, which I agree are
heartbreaking, will take even more time, effort and money to fix.  But
restrictions on abortion won't help us one bit in solving them.

> >You may recall
> >(or then again you may not) that my argument was that if the pro-life
> >movement wanted to have a significant and POSITIVE effect on society,
> >they would make these the spearhead of their program.
>
> And, my argument is that you don't get to define significant and
> positive effect.  Sure, it's nice to argue that one's political
> opponents can't participate unless they meet obligations that would
> interfere in their participation, but ....

My argument is that if they quit shooting themselves in the foot, they
might find themselves reaching their professed goals faster.  After all,
Missy insists that confrontational tactics are NOT central to their
real work.  Oddly enough, I have a perfect right to make that argument.
Sorry if it upsets you.

> >Nothing at all wrong with that ad.  What's offensive is when supporters
> >of the ad start blaming people for making different choices.
>
> Note that that "offensive" standard only applies to pro-life folks.

You find me a pro-choice group that blames women for freely choosing to
bear and raise children, and I'll gladly add my voice to yours in
condemnation.  Happy hunting.

Best,
Peter

> -andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU