From: HF.TXG@forsythe.stanford.edu (TJ)
Subject: Re: Yet another sleepless night
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:41:12 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.224615.7635@midway.uchicago.edu>,
mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:
>
>        "First of all, I'm beginning to wonder-- aren't there _any_
>pro-lifers in the Place?  My sense of fairness requires me to play
>devil's advocate for positions with which I disagree, if I think
>they're being represented unfairly, but I can't believe I do as well
>as someone who actually agreed with them might.  Still... once more
>into the breach:"
>
[Stuff deleted]
>
>        "Birth control is also a seperate issue.  There are plenty of
>pro-lifers who are in favor of birth control.  Those who are opposed
>to it are not, meanwhile, in favor of every birth-- they simply
>believe that the proper response to not wanting children is
>abstinence.  Yes, there are issues involving rape, but the fact is
>that most abortions are not performed on rape victims.
>
>        "This is neither here nor there, however.  Most Americans,
>including 80% of American Catholics (one of the larger groups with an
>official stand against birth control) are in favor of birth control
>being available.  It is perfectly possible to have birth control legal
>and abortion illegal."

Hmmm...I don't know about that. I've been on the recieving end of
several peoples 'pro-life' thoughts on the matter. (My Oldest
step-brothers mother is *very* religious and *very* pro-life and
has explained to me her beliefs. I have also sat in front of
Planned Parenthood clinics and escorted women in. You can get into
some interesting conversations with the people who are out there
trying to stop the women's entrance. (You really aren't supposed to
do that, but on a slow day *shrug*. Something interesting to note
is that I've only been able to talk to priests calmly, the others
tend to tell me I'm going to hell for aiding and abetting.) I
understand their point of view. I have *no* problem with their
point of view. I *do* have a problem with someone taking my rights
away from me in the name of an unborn baby. I feel (this is
probably a reactionary statement) that they are on a gigantic power
trip. Maybe yes, maybe no.

The point that I started to make was that these people have an
unfortunate tendency to close their eyse about certain things. 1)
If we make abortion illegal, then women will not get them. The past
speaks for itself, women have and women will, it will just be far
more dangerous for them. 2) This would never happen to *my* family
or *my* children. Since a majority of these people also want to
take away sex education (sex is bad and nasty and should only be
performed between married couples) their children aren't going to
know and are going to get pregnant and are going to get an illegal
abortion. 3) But *my* children won't do that! Yes, they will, sex
is natural, a thing of nature, something that will be explored,
especially if it's kept taboo in the house.

>
>        "It's one thing to disagree with that position, but it's
>another to attribute evil motives to all who hold it: to assert, as
>I've seen some here do, that the intent of all those who hold these
>opinions is to reduce women to chattel status, or to make the lives of
>poor women more difficult.  Does anyone really suppose that there are
>people sitting in rooms in their thirty-room mansions saying, "Ah, now
>it's time to remove more fundamental rights from women so that we can
>go out and revel in the poverty of the cities and buy a few women from
>the corner store"?  Enough to put together the sort of mass movement
>which, for better or worse, the pro-life movement is?  After all, even
>the hardest core, "No abortion for any woman, under any circumstances"
>comes to 20% of the population-- that's millions of people who are
>presumably deliberately harming women and the poor for the sheer
>enjoyment of cruelty.  You'll pardon me if I find that harder to
>believe, but then I'm generally inclined to see most evil as twisted
>good intentions rather than naked malice.  Which doesn't make it less
>evil, but it _does_ make it a bit harder to hate the people one must
>oppose.  And since hating people, while sometimes hard to avoid, has
>little to recommend it, I can't see making it more difficult to be a
>bad thing in itself."

I do have to say that a majority of the people aren't aware of the
fact that they are making women 'pay' for being women. Let me try
and explain this...Only women are able to get pregnant. If a woman
get's pregnant she should want to keep the child, but if the woman
isn't married how can she afford a child...it's hard enough for a
newly married couple. If she isn't married she shouldn't have had
sex. O.k., I'll remember that the next time my hormones are going
wangy-bangy and my head is all cloudy and all the blood has rushed
to pertinent parts all over my body...or maybe you could just
follow me around and tap me on the shoulder whenever things get too
warm. (the you did not mean 'you Michael' or 'you whomever' it was
just a general 'you')

Another general misunderstanding is that I 'hate' people who are
anti-choice. I do not! I have never hated anyone in my life, been
very angry with them, yes, but not hate...*never* hate. I am very
religious and in my eyes hate denotes a sort of 'I wish you were
dead' feeling and I don't agree with that. I just don't want to be
saved in-spite-of-myself....

> >Michael
>
TJ
Newsgroups: alt.callahans