From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 05:23:34 GMT

rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:

>kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes ...
>>I don't claim Pro-Choice = pro-death.  It is a simple response to a
>>lack of respect.


>>In your face:  If you were truly "Pro-Choice" you would want a state
>>by state vote to decide once and for all whether abortion should be
>>allowed.  Since you don't want this we can only deduce you are NOT 
>>Pro-Choice.  Are you saying that if abortion is illegal that
>>1,500,000 woman a year will have suffering and death????

>Why state-by-state?  Why not national?  Either way I don't care much.
>State lines can be crossed easily enough, although this'd tend to
>affect poor people more than the wealthy.  If the goal is saving
>lives I'd think a national concensus would be rather more useful.

I would go with a national concensus because your side would be destroyed
either way.  I am simply a person who believe that government should tend
towards being as localized as feasible.  Keeps the Federal Government
from gaining unwarranted control.

>And are you saying that ending the legality of abortion will end
>suffering and death?

Certainly it would end suffering and death for probably 99% of the
1,500,000 children murdered each year.

>  What about families torn apart by the financial
>strain of too many children?

Just what do you mean by "torn apart"?

>What about women condemned to destitution by an unwanted pregnancy?

Anyone "condemned to destitution" simpley does not make good decisions.
1st mistake - getting pregnant without the financial backing.
2nd mistake - not turning child over for adoption.
3rd mistake - not taking advantage of all the organizations, public and
              private, to help her through the problem
(actually 2 and 3 should have been reversed)

>What about children who
>grow up knowing that they are unwanted and resented by their families?

Some of societies greatest people had rough childhoods.  Try interviewing
some people with rough childhoods.  Ask them if they would have rather been
torn limb from limb.

>What about the women forced onto the streets by "moral" parents
>who found out about their pregnancy?

That is a shame but hardly a reason to murder children.  There is LOTS of
help available out there to one who seeks it.

>What about the women who die from illegal abortions?

This is a tragedy.  But the woman makes the choice to put herself in danger
and therefore must accept the consequences.  A child gets no such choice.

  What about women and men forced to
>live together in unhappy marriages because of a moments passion?

Huh?

>No, I'm not saying 1.5M women will have suffering and death.  But
>it is not just women involved.  The fetus' life is not the only
>one involved.

Since a tiny fraction of 1% of abortions involved "danger" to the female's
life I think it can safely be said that "The fetus' life is the ONLY one
involved."

>>So you cannot see the merits of the other side unless someone states it
>>politely?  I suggest you re-examine both sides on your own before waiting
>>for a polite, uncondescending, non-sarcastic, non-threatening post that
>>your mind can work with.  BTW are my posts (which you don't like) any more
>>childish than a Choicer accusing me of "fetal worship" and other related
>>crap?

>"Fetal worshipper", while perhaps unnecessarily imflammatory, may be 
>justified in light of some "Pro-Lifers" apparent disregard for any 
>of the people involved in their desire to save the fetus/embryo/zygote.
>As for the merits of the other side, I've yet to see them _rationally_
>stated, much less politely.  Most of the pro-life arguments can be
>summarized as "Because I/my church/the Pope says so."  This is hardly
>sufficient to be convincing.

Obviously we are opposite sides of an issue.  But I think your previous
paragraph makes it clear the you are not, and never have been objective.
"Fetal worshipper" justifiable?   "I've yet to see them _rationally_
stated," (I run rings around you logically).  "Because I/my church/
the Pope says so".  Close mindedness at its most obvious.

>>>In what way do you mean they are valid?  In that Nazi's killed many people?
>>>Or that the Nazi's were dictators that tried to control all aspects of 
>>>people's lives?
>>Correct.  Including (but not limited to) the "they are lesser beings and hence
>>have not value.  We can kill them with disdain." attitudes.

>You missed the point.  Stated another way ...
>"Pro-Choice are like Nazis because of all the babies killed"
>"Pro-Life are like Nazis because they want to control everyone's lives"

>Which?  Both statements suggest the offending group has little regard 
>for other people.  Since Naziism is mostly a political philosophy,
>any use here is just name-calling and inappropriate.

Oh.  The old dictionary is always right arguement.  Sorry, I should've replaced
Nazi with "Elitist, supremist, murderous guys who slaughtered people wholesale
in the 40's because they thought others were undeserving subhumans".  Hope you
feel better being related to this new group.

>Ray

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty