From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Organization: NRL
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:48:58 GMT

In article <1ickh8INN200@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John
Townsend) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.150542.15081@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>|> ...
>|> You can be truly pro-life and oppose any attempt at bringing
>|> legislation to bear in the case of abortion.  Respect for life
>|> hardly implies or demands a particular legislative agenda.
>|> Pro-life can mean many things.  Here it often means a 
>|> legislative agenda and a desire to bring fear and punishment
>|> to bear on abortion.  Pro-choice can mean many things too.
>|> Here it often means opposition of any legislation which
>|> would restrict abortion.
>|> ...
>.....  Murder, the unjust taking of a human life, is morally
>wrong regardless of what the law says because of the degradation in the
quality
>of our society that it would naturally bring.  The law merely spells out
>artificial consequences for murdering, in order to prevent the natural ones.
>Abortion, among other things, reflects and contributes to the cheapening of
>human life in society, the natural consequence of which is that individuals
>become more likely to take or abuse the lives of others when others are in
>conflict with the individual's other desires. ....


>Otherwise, I agree.  I call myself anti-abortion because that is the best
>one-word description of my views on the subject.  All I want to do is limit
the
>number of abortions to the lowest possible number, ideally zero, and I really
>don't care whether it's done legally, socially, religiously, or however.  As a
>rule, I adamantly favor less government over more government, and I would
>vastly prefer any other solution, but the legalization of abortion has allowed
>the number of abortions performed to grow every year since RvW.  I believe
that
>requiring the government and insurance to pay for abortions will likewise
>increase the number of elective abortions performed.  Ultimately, I personally
>think that the only way to reduce the number of abortions will be through a
>combination of legal and cultural taboos against it, but I agree that the
>cultural ones are the most important.
>

>// John Townsend  

John - 

I have already been informed that I am a bore - so be it.  I would,
nevertheless be interested in your opinion...

I agree very much with your sentiments regarding the cheapening of life.  As a
vehicle to persuade someone to the anti-abortion side, however, it holds no
sway.  The immediately realizable 'benefits' of freely available abortion are
so overriding that moral and 'conceptual' arguments can't compete.  The concept
of morality itself is viewed with suspicion by many Americans.  It is often
associated with attempts to impose religious beliefs and values (The Moral
Majority?), stricty a taboo, and rightfully so.  In reality, morality has
everything to do with the laws society enacts. Laws are codefied mores.

While pro-abortion rights advocates claim that abortion is a moral issue and
should be left as a personal decision, they really mean to say, "Watch out,
those pro-lifers want to force their relgion on you".  The direct statement to
that effect is becomming less and less tenable given the proliferation of
'non-traditional' anti-abortion groups such as Feminists for Life and American
Collegiates for Life. Nevertheless, the indirect statement is just as powerful.
 The problem is not that abortion is a moral issue, it is that those who call
themselves pro-choice, often can't see that it truly IS a moral issue.  It is a
 moral tenet that has been incorperated into the fabric of our society long
ago.

One might argue that practically speaking, murder was 'made' immoral as a way
of preserving order in a society.  Taking this line of reasoning it would make
perfect sense to exclude the killing of the unborn from the definition of
murder, they pose no threat and therefore do not need to be appeased. While
this may be a "seed" of today's morality, I believe that the prohibition
against killing runs much deeper than this.  I think that even the most ardent
pro-abort would also agree.

So what's left?  Human nature.  Humans have a very difficult time giving
credence to something they can not see.  "Out of sight - out of mind" is no
flippant adage.  The typical pro-abortion person I run into just can not
conceptualize the unborn-born equivalence.  The more one tries to extract from
them the exact difference, the greater the intensity of anger and resentment on
their part.  In this group, the well honed pro-abort crowd don't need rage to
obfuscate; the common library of slick dogdes, feints and diversions is their
way.  I've only been posting for a few week, and already I see that it is
considered a game when words like "trashed", "victory","winning" are thrown at
me.  So, given the enormous stake people have in keeping abortion available,
and the powerful mechanisms human nature has devised to keep people from
looking too deeply into their motives, what can we do?

      



Newsgroups: talk.abortion