From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Newsgroups: houston.general,tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 26 Aug 92 08:28:29 GMT
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx

In article <1684A4050.AHEMP01@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> AHEMP01@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Amy Hemphill) writes:
>You know, I'd really like to know what gave you such a twisted view of college
>aged/educated people.  I would assume that, because you have the access to
>read and post here, that you are in some way affiliated with a college as well.
>Once again, I ask politely, though difficultly so, to not categorize all
>people in college who happen to believe in something enough to march for it
>as 'sociopaths' and 'spoiled brats.'  Meet some of us.  These are words no one
>has ever in the past used about me, and I dare say I'm not alone.

Did I say it to you?  No.  I responded explicitly to Lorra.  

Y'know, the net is a neat thing.  Since we often don't "know" other people, 
in a personal sense, we respond to one anothers' *intellect*.  Right now, a 
lot of you think I'm an asshole.  Fine: that's how I've been behaving, and 
it's probably a reasonable conclusion.  See how it works? :-)


Four points, though:

1.  Why am I so down on college activists?  Simple: take a 17-year-old 
freshman.  A product of our superb educational system. (EXTREME sarcasm, 
there).  Stick him in a college setting.  Totally different slant to the 
educational grind.  The student's suddenly expected to PRODUCE.  One of my 
most disconcerting moments was in an English course, first semester.  We 
were told to read several chapters from a book and *write authoritatively* 
on it: assimilate and extrapolate the author's ideas to broader themes.  I 
resisted this.  I felt that I had no *standing* to analyze the author, since 
all I had read of his vast corpus was a few chapters from a textbook.  No 
dice.  So I wrote the paper.  I got it back.  B-.  Why?  Not written *force-
fully* enough.  Regardless of the fact I knew virtually nothing about the
topic, I was supposed to pretend I did.  I quickly adapted, and did much
better. 

The point here is simple: to a great extent, it's a game, a roll-playing game,
to get one to think "critically."  It doesn't MATTER that one doesn't know
what one's talking about, in a *real* sense: it's a training exercise.  And
that's what college is: a "nursery" to get children to think analytically.
Or, rather: that's what it's supposed to be; I suppose that, in reality,
it's just a vocational school, with things like that retained for tradition's
sake--but I digress. 

The problem occurs when students start to take this stuff too seriously.  
They're "low on the learning curve," so to speak, and are suddenly exposed to 
a vast new world of ideas and information.  This can be heavy stuff for a 
kid who's never left his home town, who's living away from his parents for
the first time, and who's been victimized by our crappy public school system 
all his life.  

My theory is that quite a few students crack under the strain, and suffer a 
temporary insanity for a few years. :-)  Thus, on one hand, we have the 
Young Republican clones.  On the other, people like Lorra.  

But don't get me wrong.  This is fine.  It's a part of growing up.  Just
don't expect me to take them *too* seriously.  I find the political activism
of the population as a whole much more enlightening: how many 50-year-olds
do you see responding with such vigor?


2.  This little flame-war started with a simple, one-line statement by myself:

	"I wasn't ware that poverty was punishable by death."  

In RESPONSE to this, Lorra issued a multi-tiered attack, instantly lumping me 
with the fundamentalist nuts, calling me "sick," accusing me of wishing to 
foster the propagation of crack addicts, all sorts of weird shit.  (Where were 
the rest of you then?).  

By the time I issued my first attack, I had at least two extensive posts on 
which to base my opinion.  On that basis, and her rhetorical style, I framed 
an appropriate response.  

I have few regrets about my posts, feel the essence of my conclusions about
her are appropriate, even IF the details are lacking, and, despite her three 
whining requests for me to "apologize" for those conclusions, I will not do so. 


3.  The specific arguments which set me off.  

Lorra is pro-choice.  I actually have little problem with that.  I feel
it's the WRONG view, but am not sure enough of MY views to try to impose 
them on other people (in fact, that's a cornerstone of my belief that the
least destructive path should be followed, in this case--given the doubts
on both sides, it only makes logical sense to eliminate abortion-on-demand).

I reacted mainly to HER *arguing* for the "right to choose" on the *basis* 
that it is *desirable* to control the birth rate of the poor by abortions, 
in order to avoid producing the miserable existence that *she* believes all 
poor people live in--namely, becoming a crack addict living in a cardboard
box.  I don't know about the rest of you, but in a matter as sensitive as 
this, I think there's a world of difference between an *individual* coming 
up with her own decision, and some nut *agitating* for that action, as if 
all the world's problems would come to an end if we just aborted the poor's 
unborn children.  

When this has been suggested in the past, it's come under names like 
"genocide."  It is, in fact, NO different than "eliminating poverty" by
eliminating the *poor*.  It's no wonder that many black radicals feel the 
white man's out to do precisely this.

A 100% abortion rate is a logical extreme of her "moralistic" argument, 
and that is the grounds that it should be argued on.  It is poorly thought 
out, unworkable, and has precious little basis for it to be argued for so 
passionately.  IMHO.


4.  There is another aspect to her argument.  Ten years ago, the abortion 
debate centered around killing embryos, and nobody would DREAM of claiming to
use abortion as a *birth control* method.  There IS an implicit assumption 
that, even if it's not a "person," a fetus is a "proto-human"; there's 
similarly significant emotional and physical demands on the parents when 
this "proto-human" is aborted.  Now, we have people like Lorra flippantly 
suggesting that abortion's the only answer for "accidents."  I'd rather see 
them invest an iota of the time and effort they've invested in abortion
campaigning, on more "conventional" birth-control methods.  But I suspect 
it's a lot more fun to battle with the establishment, regardless of whether 
it's a paranoid fantasy of "government" stealing your rights, or an 
"englightened" response to all the nuts and their "crackpot religions."  
Another psychosocial characteristic of adolescents.


So, please do forgive me if I respond in kind.



>thinks before condemning it.  I've NEVER heard tactics like these advocated
>at any of the rallies or marches I've been to.

Which, lining the elderly up against the wall, or inciting the poor to 
abort their babies in favor of social mobility?  I tend to associate NOW
with the latter; the former's obviously an exercise in rhetoric by hyperbole.


>It's even required for graduation in most places that the student have a clue.

Really?  I thought it was a function of GPA and satisfying the degree 
requirements.  Silly me! :-|



>Amy Hemphill
>ahemp01@ricevm1.rice.edu



---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
Xref: sparky houston.general:935 tx.general:636 tx.politics:4466