From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Pro Choice Election Strat
X-To: RICHARD FOY
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 02:23:00 GMT


(You KNEW that you were going to get a reply to this, didn't you...?  <-: )

foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes...
RF> The best defense is a good offence. Pro Choice people have been defending
RF> abortion clinics and defending Roe v. Wade. They need to fight anti-life.
RF> They need to take the fight to the enemy; who are the the self righteoous,
RF> uncompassionate, psuedo Christians.

Well, they aren't ALL Christians...


RF> Unfortunately the Supreme Court Casey decision is probably representative
RF> of the majority American attitude. Many people who are not passionately
RF> involved in the debate think parent notification, a waiting period,
RF> hearing about alternatives to abortion, are good requirements. They don't
RF> spend the time, nor listen to the arguments of why those provisions create
RF> major problems.


Although I do not think that you would presume to say that when people agree
with your viewpoints, they are "well informed," I *would* say that it is
somewhat unfair of you to be saying that the majority of people who disagree
with you are uninformed.

Perhaps they have already heard both sides, and have chosen.  You can't assume
that the answer to *every* problem is education, read: education as to your
own vies, *especially* with a debate like this, which has been raging on for
decades.


RF> Taking the battle to the enemy means demonstrating against the antis; at
RF> such places as the home of Operations Rescue people, at the homes of
RF> anti-choice candidates, at the functions of anti choice groups.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^

Again, I point out that this terminology is probably a deliberate attempt at
being inflammatory, though I am *not* "flaming" you for doing so.  Still,
those who live by the sword (or by fire...) are destined to die by the sword
as well.

Prepare to have LOTS of people flame you and call you "anti-life" or
"pro-death".  I will not be one of them, however.


RF> The demonstrations could use signs such as:

RF> "ANTI CHOICE IS PRO VIOLENCE
RF> Unloved children become criminals"

Well..."unloved" is relative.  Unloved by whom?  A child wanted by the father
is loved, is he/she/it not?  That the child is wanted or unwanted by the
mother only, is not in my opinion, sufficient definition as to whether the
child is loved or not.


RF> "ANTI CHOICE IS PRO TAXES
RF> Unwanted children grow up to live in prisons"

Ditto.  Also, to assume that *all* children who are unwanted by their mothers,
have the father walk out on them (sometimes yes, but *not* all the time...)
and then become criminals, is a *very* watery assumption indeed.


RF> "ANTI CHOICE IS PRO STARVATION
RF> Third world women are denied birth control"

Hmmm...  Difficult to argue with THAT one.


RF> "ANTI CHOICE IS PRO GLOBAL WARMING
RF> It leads to the population explosion.

You're comparing population with global warming????  Global warming can be
stopped with effective environmental management of industry and households,
etc., *not* necessarily by cutting the population.



RF> Do any pro choice people have comments on the the pros and cons of this
           ^^^^^^^^^^
RF> approach, particularly with regard to the possible effects of having such
RF> demonstrations outside of anti choice political candidates?

Well, although your question seem geared towards the exclusion of those who
do not explicitly agree with you, you are GOING to get plenty, and MANY of
them will not be as unemotional as mine... but if you've been on the net for
over a few days, I probably don't need to be telling you that...  :-)

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                       "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Mommas, don't let your babies grow up to be writers!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush