From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 02:17:51 GMT

Sorry for all the quoted articles, but it's the only way I could get
this message to make any sense.

In article <exuptr.334.714254028@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.015745.13019@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:
>>In article <exuptr.320.714175652@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:

ME:

>>Pro-abortion and anti-choice are not equally derogatory terms. Those
>>who support the traditional pro-life stance are, by definition,
>>anti-choice, since in most situations they would claim that a pregnant
>>woman should have the child, no matter what her personal choice is.
>>Hence the term anti-choice. Choice is antithetical to the pro-life
>>stance. Anti-abortion seems like an appropriate name for people who
>>hold this view too.

PT:

>Now who's being stupid?  Hypocrisy has got nothing to do with equal
>amounts of anything.  You cannot preach about using derogatory terminology
>and use one in the next (or previous or same) paragraph without being a
>hypocrite.

First off, I didn't "preach" anything. My whole point is that
anti-choice is not a derogatory term. It is a statement of fact.
Pro-abortion is a derogatory (or at least incorrect) term, because it
ascribes views to pro-choice'rs that they may not hold.

PT:

>But, your comments above, put from another viewpoint, would read:
>
>Those who support the traditional pro-choice stance are, by definition, 
>pro-murder, since in most situations they would claim that a woman wanting
>an abortion should get one, no matter what the fetus might actually
>experience.  Hence the term pro-murder.  Murder is antithetical to the
>pro-life stance....

Please, read my entire post. Despite what you may think, pro-choice'rs
are not, as a group, a bunch of axe-wielding fetus-slashing fiends.
Many, many pro-choice advocates see abortion as an option which must
remain legal because *women deserve to control their own biology*, not
as a form of birth control, or murder.

ME:

>>(I can see it now; someone's going to speak up and say "I'm pro-life
>>and pro-choice too!").

PT:

>Why not?  Among other things, there's the fetus's choice.

It is still an open question whether or not an unborn fetus can make
or understand a choice.

ME:

>>Pro-abortion, on the other hand, is a term specifically meant to debase
>>pro-choice supporters. 

PT:

>Like this is not the intention behind anti-choice.  Your hypocrisy is 
>showing again.

It was never my intention, although I realize some people may use it
that way. Regardless, it is a much more factual statement than
'pro-abortion'.

ME:

>>Pro-abortion suggests that the person in question
>>not only supports the right to choose abortion, but also would personally
>>encourage abortions or receive an abortion.

PT:

>This, in fact, happens.  

Sure, that may be true of some pro-choice'rs. However, it's unfair to
ascribe this opinion to all pro-choice'rs, many of whom would not
choose abortion for themselves, nor recommend it to others.

ME:

>>This is simply not the case. There are many, many pro-choice
>>supporters who would never recommend abortion, encourage abortion, or
>>get an abortion for themselves. 

So, I repeat myself.

PT:

>By supporting choice, they are "recommending" abortion as an alternative.
>Maybe not as *the* choice for a given situation, but it is an endorsement
>of the activity as an option.  It just doesn't make sense for someone who
>"would NEVER [emphasis added] recommend abortion, encourage abortion, or
>get an abortion for themselves" to endorse this choice.

Fortunately, many people are open-minded enough to allow a behaviour
which they to not specifically endorse. For example, I do not
participate in nor endorse the homosexual lifestyle, but I support (at
least in my armchair-politics way) the rights of gays, and I accept
that some people may choose the homosexual lifestyle. I'm
pro-gay-rights, but not pro-homosexual or anti-heterosexual.

Likewise, while I would not personally recommend or encourage abortion
(and certainly would never receive one, for obvious biological
reasons), I recognize that others (particularly females in much more
desperate straits than myself) should be able to make that choice for
themselves. I am pro-choice, but not pro-abortion.

PT:

>As for your liberal definition of pro-choice, I'm pro-choice also.  I
>just don't think murder should be one of the choices.

You're obscuring the issue. We're not arguing pro-life vs. pro-choice
here. I don't claim that the pro-choice'rs are always right, only that
pro-abortion is a very poor term to apply to them.

PT:

>>>anti-choice and anti-life, that must be it.  Some people just can't see
>>>how they do what they judge others for...

NOW I start talking about abortion in general:

ME:

>>I guess I just never understood the pro-life position. Unjust death
>>occurs in this country, and the world, all the time. 

PT:

>And I'm not happy about that, either.  Why add to it?

In theory, I agree with you. I hope for a world where abortion is only
a medical necessity.

>>While induced
>>death may seem somehow more... sinful?... than death by starvation,
>>abuse, neglect, or poor prenatal care, there's nothing inherently
>>worse about it.

>But unless you can *prove* it will happen to an aborted one, aren't you
>playing God?

Play God? Yeah, right. If I were a Christian, I might worry about
that, but I'll try to reply in the same spirit.

According to the basic precepts of Christianity, any child who dies
anywhere has been taken by God. God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and
has the power to save *any* child who he or she chooses to save. He
chooses not to save some, apparently, and instead takes them into the
kingdom of Heaven at his or her discretion. I don't see how an aborted
fetus, which dies at the hands of a doctor and the child's mother, is
any less the product of God's neglect than a child that dies in war or
by starvation. God could save them all, if he or she so chose. He or
she does not.

By this reasoning, anyone who takes another life for any reason (be it
war, capital punishment, neglect, or any direct or indirect method) is
playing God. That includes our President (commander-in-chief, that
is), our military, and our judiciary, among many, many others.

ME:

>>When pro-lifers can demonstrate to me that they
>
>>1) Are ready to provide pre-natal care and appropriate post-natal care
>>to all children, regardless of social, racial, or economic standards,
>>and

PT:

>I'm for it.  Really.  Not only that but child care.

Good! I like pro-life'rs who are willing to contribute to a real
solution.

ME:

>>2) Would extend their hands to unwed, pregnant women with promises of
>>comfort and help rather than accusations of sin and ostracism,

PT:

>I'll do everything I can.

Also good.

ME:

>>then I'll be ready to help eliminate abortion from the world.

PT:

>Personally, I think eliminating abortions with laws is far too slow a 
>process.  It's gonna take personal intercession; each pro-lifer doing what 
>they can to help a candidate mother make a choice for life, and then 
>following through on the helps.
>
>If you ask me, OR should be out there with certificates for free prenatal 
>care, food stamps, or whatever they can legally offer to avoid the 
>"necessity" of abortion.  In this country especially, it is appalling that 
>anyone should ever think it "necessary"

Capital idea, really. I wish more pro-life types thought this way.
That's the real solution to the abortion issue: remove the stigma from
unwed pregnancy and provide real comfort and help. So few pro-life
'political' types are willing to do that.

>You'll be hearing more about this...
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
>                                                       - D Adams
>  - Patrick Taylor
>    Ericsson Network Systems
>    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
>    alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org
-- 
# Rick Russell    | TAMU Meteorology   | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Internet) #
# "Snow Goons are bad news." - Calvin  |                                    #