From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Who is "righter"?  Or are all wrong?
Date: 14 Aug 92 04:47:15 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Aug12.181520.9988@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu ( ) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.024136.552@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> 
>z_woodsjl@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>
>> I am not inclined to force my own personal point of view on other people,
>> however I do feel that both sides of the abortion issue are very open to
>> criticism.  I want to address both sides with the faults of both.
>> [...]
>> 
>> PRO-LIFE
>>
>
>> and why have pro-lifers bombed clinics, possibly causing 
>> injury or loss of life (the possible loss of life, caused by efforts to 
>> preserve life)? 
>
>I don't approve of this violence.  The people who bomb clinics should
>be punished severely.  
	I'm glad to see you say that.  I wish more leaders of the pro-life
movement would say the same thing.

>
>Please realize that the pro-life movement does not support the violent
>actions which you describe.  Many pro-abortionists would like you to
>believe that every pro-lifer supports these violent actions, but
>that's wrong.  I'd like to see these people put in jail just as much
>as the pro-abortionists. 
	Are you claiming that Randall Terry isn't part of the pro-life
movement?  That Operation Rescue and Missionaries to the PreBorn aren't
part of the movement?  That'll come as a big surprise to them!  These people
AND their tactics are part of your movement.  You can (and shoulld, IMHO)
condemn them.  But you can't claim they're not part of the territory.
	And while we're at it: please note that I consistently use your
preferred term (pro-life); common courtesy would seem to dictate that you
do the same.  I am not "pro-abortion".  Neither are nearly all the pro-choice
folks here.  You must be aware of that by now.
>
>> Why is it that many people who support the pro-life side, are supporters of
>> capital punishment?
>
>There are many people in the pro-life movement who do not support capital 
>punishment.  I don't support it.  But I don't believe that a pro-life/capital
>punishment stance is necessarily inconsistent.  
	I'm sorry, but this is simply inaccurate.  A pro-life stance most
certainly is inconsistent with support for capital punishment; the Catholic
Church has recognized this for many years now.  A merely anti-abortion stance,
however, is not inconsistent.
	The right to life, if God-given, cannot be revoked by any human
institution.  Such institutions are inherently imperfect.  Not everyone
sentenced to death is truly guilty.  Supporting capital punishment means
supporting a system in which some *innocent* human beings will *inevitably*
be murdered, legally, by the State.  Support for such a system is quite
obviously inconsistent with a pro-life eithic.
	Be aware, by the way, that I am not opposed to capital punishment
myself.  But then, I don't claim to be pro-life, either.
	If you're going to talk the talk, you'd best walk the walk, or be
exposed as a sham.
>
>> Both sides are guilty of the following:  Both are guilty of not trying to 
>> reach a compromise that would accomplish the goals of both sides--the is the
>> prevention of unwanted pregnancies.  
>
>I support easy access to contraceptives, sex education in the public
>schools, and the dismantling of the many barriers to adoption.   
>
	Good for you; this is the first time I've seen you state this in this
forum.  What have you done to achieve thses ends?

>> Think about it. . . is anything being accomplished by attacking one another?
>
>No, nothing can be accomplished by resorting to violence.
>
	Yes, I think we can agree on that one.
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger
>

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80