From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:13:11 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
: lls@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Lori Smallwood) writes:
: >I object to the term "Pro-Abortion" (thank you for including "Pro-Choice") 
: >in a big way.
: 
: If there is nothing wrong with abortion, I wonder why so many Pro-Choice
: get so angry (I'm not saying you do Lori) when they are called
: "Pro-Abortion"?  Why is this distinction so important?  It seems to be more
: than just a legitimate concern over getting the issues straight.  I can't
: think of any other issue where people react this way.

Have you ever stopped to consider that many of us who are pro-choice are
generally anti-abortion on a personal level?

Pro-choice = The government should not attempt to legislate the (il)legality
	     of abortion.  Most people in the country hold different views
	     about when abortion is "right" and when it is "wrong."  To
	     attempt to legislate one set of those "right/wrong" positions
	     forces a set of morals down the throats of those who might
	     not share those morals.  The individual should decide for
	     herself whether or not an abortion in her set of circumstances
	     is right or wrong.  The government should not be involved in
	     making the decision, assuming that the individual is competent
	     to make such a decision.

I don't know that you can come up with a good definition for "pro-abortion."
In the extreme case, that term could imply that the individual believes that
all unborn children should be aborted, that no more humans should be 
born.

I personally belive that abortion should not be considered a form of
birth control; that when a couple consents (*) to having sex, they
should be consenting to the risk of pregnancy (among other things), and
the responsibility that comes with being a parent.

To abort a child _only_ because "I don't want a baby," IMHO is murder.
However, I acknowledge that there may be instances where an abortion
may be justified -- where the pregnancy threatens the mental and/or
physical health of the mother, for example.  These decisions are, IMHO,
best left to the individual.  The current governments in the U.S. are
all ready a bureaucratic mess, and are far too invovled in people's
private lives.  When it comes to deciding whether something is
"right" or "wrong" in the massive grey areas of morals, the decision
is always best left to the individual, rather than the State.

Pro-choice does not necessarily imply "pro-abortion."  That is why so
many people get upset when someone tries to equate the two; that person
convieniently forgets about the pro-choice but anti-abortion people
out there.

(*) Above, I am using "consent" assuming the following definition: consent
is one person's agreement to participate in an action, if that person
is sober, conscious, mentally competent to make that decision, and makes
that decision under his/her own free will.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: talk.abortion