From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:03:39 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug20.021751.14254@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:
>Sorry for all the quoted articles, but it's the only way I could get
>this message to make any sense.

Ditto, for the same reasons...

I have attempted to edit non-essential parts, cause this got really BIG.

>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...

>PT:

>>Now who's being stupid?  Hypocrisy has got nothing to do with equal
>>amounts of anything.  You cannot preach about using derogatory 
>>terminology...

>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.

Ok, we just flat disagree here.  I think anti-<anything> is designed to 
create a negative impression.

>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.

You may think I'm stupid, but I'm not that stupid, in any case.  Nor are
prolifers required to be anal-retentive bible-toters that cuss and drink in 
the dark.  --> Nor are they all anti-choice.  <-- Read that again.

>Many, many pro-choice advocates see abortion as an option which must
>remain legal because *women deserve to control their own biology*, 

They are controlling someone else's biology, also, IMHO.  Agreed this will 
be a subject of contention, though.

>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.

Yes.  Agreed it's open.  And as long as it's open, what happened to playing 
the safe side of doubt?

>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'.

NO, NO, NO.  Only *some* pro-lifers are anti-choice by your definition, and
almost all are not by a "factual definition".  I would only like to see one 
choice limited under certain circumstances.  I'm still for all the other 
choices that nobody's really talking about.  I realize only *some* pro-
choicers are pro_abortion literally, but they could all be called anti-fetus'
s-rights, could they not?

>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.

Agreed.  Same fairness should be applied to the term "anti-choice".  Follow 
me yet?  It does not apply to all or even most pro-lifers.

>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.

Some pro-lifers would love to have the chance to "convert" awoman 
considering an abortion, not by legal or combative means, but by help and 
conversation.  Is this anti-choice?

>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.

Yet if you openly advocate pro-choice, couldn't that lead someone into 
thinking it's okay because someone else agrees with me?  I know I'm on shaky 
ground legalistically, I'm just trying to get you to think about this...

>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.

I'll agree.  But I also think anti-choice is a poor generalisation.  I only 
invoked terminology to make a point.

>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:

Oh, are we done with that?  Whew :-)

>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.

Alright.  Some common ground :-)

>>>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. 

Ahh, yes and no.  God is all_powerful, yes.  (Sorry I'm pre-empting...)
But that power includes the power to let things be, IMHO.  Some things God 
will just not interfere in.  No Christian who is a real one would claim to 
be able to explain it or understand it, cause God has chosen the foolish 
things of the world to confound the wise.  IOW, don't try to fathom God.

>God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and
>has the power to save *any* child who he or she chooses to save. 

But save, for God, doesn't mean in the flesh.  Just because God can
make it alright doesn't mean no harm has been done.  I mean the same logic 
you are using here could be applied to an adult, right?

>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. 

Or an adult who is brutally murdered at the hands of a nut.  So make that 
legal?  Don't see how it applies.

>He or she does not.

No, (s)he does.

>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. 

Maybe so.

>That includes our President (commander-in-chief, that
>is), our military, and our judiciary, among many, many others.

Ahh, yes.  Can't really disagree...

>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.

Thanks.  Of course "real" solutions are the only long-term answer, otherwise 
we are back to illegal abortions, etc...

>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.

I always like to end something on a positive note.  But seriously, I'm 
willing to pay the cost for real solutions.  Churches even (perish the 
thought!) should get involved and extend *free* services to needy persons of 
all types.

Who did Jesus help?  He helped sinners, poor, diseased, etc...  Funny how 
today we have unwed mothers, AIDS, famine.  Same problems.  Wonder what 
Jesus would do if he were here today? :-)

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "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