From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life vs. Anti-Abortion (Re: fetus vs. baby)
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:11:57 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx

In article <1992Aug11.174732.22064@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>The difference between someone who is 'pro-choice' but not necessarily
>pro-abortion and someone who is anti-abortion, is that the
>'pro-choice' person says that they would not get an abortion, but it's
>ok with them if you want to (or don't want to).  The anti-abortion'
>person, on the other hand, says that not only would they not get an
>abortion, but nobody else should be allowed to, either.  One side says
>that they don't care to impose their personal belief on everyone else,
>while the other (for what they consider to be good and sufficient
>reasons) wants to put force of law behind their own personal choice so
>that everyone else has to behave the way they personally would.

I've come to a somewhat opposite set of definitions, mutually opposing,
but not in the sense you imply:

Pro-Choice: Rhetoric "blanks out" the issue of the second life, denies its 
humanity, views the whole thing merely as a discretionary civil rights issue
of the woman involved.

Anti-Abortion: Does NOT "blank out" the second life, insists on *its* right to
be carried to term, whether for religious, moral, or ethical reasons (all
different things, mind you :-)).  Subordinates the "sponsoring" life in 
favor of the unborn life.

Anti-Abortion vs Pro-Life: simply an adoption of the latter as a political
realization that any label containing "anti" is sure to appeal to fewer 
people.  We're a happy, positive, hedonistic society; no need to be brought
down.  Same people, same beliefs.


Personally, I lean somewhat toward the anti-abortion definition.  And note
that even if I were pro-choice, I'd want the anti-abortion people around.
It's interesting to note how, ten years ago, the pro-choicers were very 
adamant about abortion *not* being a birth-control method; yet, that's 
precisely what the issue has become.  Without some opposition, what's 
to hinder the change to infanticide from birth control?  After all, most of 
the pro-choice arguments seem to be based on the "choice" of determining
a child's *economic* viability.  A young child's a major, long-term expense.  
Find you can't afford it?  Bummed out by the latest economic forecasts?  Not 
getting enough sleep?  Don't want to show up at the racquet club with 
bloodshot eyes?  What better solution than to get rid of your sleep-killer and 
major recurrent expense, in one shot?

Improbable?  Just look at this thread: *fetus vs. baby*, rather than the
traditional *embryo vs. fetus*.  

Having lived outside the United States for many years, I simply cannot under-
stand how a society which cannot tolerate the thought of infanticide casually
ignores the thousands of abortions in their second and third trimesters.  Then 
again, having been exposed to a bunch of pickle jars of real human fetuses for 
several years, in my elementary school's science lab, might have a bit to do 
with my empathy for the *reality* of unborn life (I, incidentally, think the 
bloody buckets of fetuses SHOULD be publicized: no matter what your position, 
if you take it, it should be in full awareness of the physical human 
consequence).


>Count how many 'pro-life' people favor things like capital punishment,
>some wars, killing in self-defense, etc. 

Yet many pro-choice people believe in the same things.  A lot of pro-choicers
simultaneously clamor for ever-more-stringent laws on murder, rape, and other
crimes: it's tautologous, if, indeed, the pro-choice movement has 
the support of the American mainstream, as they claim.  And we all know the
current American mainstream wants what amounts to a police state, security
being chosen over civil liberties in most opinion polls and many legal 
decisions.

Either we're an anarchistic society or we aren't: if it's okay for me to kill 
my unborn child for no better reason than because it *inconveniences* me, 
with no medical basis or legal process, then a little germ of an idea is 
planted, that it's okay for me to kill *you*, if you inconvenience me.  I 
don't like to see anything which cheapens the value of human life, and 
unhindered, on-demand abortion does precisely that.  It's a cancer on the 
moral and ethical fabric of society.  And I say this from a philosophical, 
not religious, perspective.

 
>Not exactly 'pro-life'. 

I agree, many "pro-life" or anti-abortion people do seem to have quite a 
few screws loose.  But I resent the characterization of all of them as a bunch
of deranged, bible-thumping morons (which many seem to be), and the pro-
choice people as savvy, college-educated c00l d00ds.  As always, the reality 
is a middle ground.  But, again, as always, the debate hinges on which 
definition the other side can cook up which is the most offensive, and you're 
certainly helping the along.


Note that it ires me no end to be standing in the same corner as 
Haughie... :-(




---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd