From: rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson)
Subject: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because:
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Houston, TX
	<RJOHNSON.92Aug26094732@conus.shell.com>
	<1992Aug27.033525.457@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 28 Aug 92 10:07:26

knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
 >rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
 >>knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
 >> >orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:
 >> >>If only it were possible to take fetuses from 
 >> >>their unwanting mothers and give them to homes where they are wanted.
 >>
 >> >If that were true, what do you think the chances are that one to two million
 >> >extra children (predominantly non-white btw) will find homes?
 >>
 >>Some would call this a racist statement.  I'll just call it ignorant.
	[figures deleted]

 >Fine, but the issue was not the number of abortions, but the number of
 >children up for adoption.  My issue was with adoption, not abortion.
 >If you can supply similar numbers for children up for adoption, I would be
 >very interested to see them.

Your remark was about "extra children" -- I took that to mean those that
would have been aborted but instead were taken from the womb to be
adopted.

 >I don't understand why you consider a comment which makes a racial distinction,
 >racist, but I apologize if you took it that way.  It was not intended to 
 >be racist.

I didn't call it racist.  But the reason it looks racist is that you implied
that abortions are performed on non-whites hugely out of proportion with the 
general population distribution, and you had no basis for saying that.

 >I won't call you ignorant for not staying with the issue, how's that?

Dandy.

 >> >I think it's small. I also think that most pro-lifers complain about the 
 >> >problem of 'baby slaugtering' but do literally nothing to house, clothe and 
 >> >feed the children without homes right *now*.
 >>
 >>You are, of course, mistaken.

 >No, you have missed the point. I have no problem admitting I am mistaken, you 
 >have not pointed out an error yet.

 >>Just because you see the abortion
 >>protests and don't see the protesters' other actions, don't assume
 >>that they are not active in helping the needy.

 >I'm not assuming, I'm not seeing it. If you can provide some evidence of a
 >similarly massive movement by the pro-lifers to try to take care of the 
 >*existing* unwanted children, I will be glad to hear about it.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers counsel women and arrange for adoption.  They're
also under fire for trying to talk women out of abortions, when the women
went there thinking they were abortion clinics, but that's another topic.

Churches, responsible for the bulk of the pro-life movement, teach values
besides stopping abortion.  Large numbers of foster parents became foster
parents because of their religious beliefs.  As for a "massive movement",
there isn't a need for one, because it's not controversial.

I might refer you to the book "Completely Pro-Life".  If you're interested,
I can get author, ISBN, etc.  Caveat -- I haven't read it, my wife has.

 >Perhaps they are blowing up group homes now?

Nuts blow up things -- this is not typical of the pro-life movement,
even if you believe they are nuts.  When was the last clinic bombing,
anyway?
--
Roy Johnson, who is not Kibo
Shell Development Company (but speaking for myself)
"There's a big difference between being a lesbian and being a male!"
			-- tabn3@isuvax.iastate.edu (Griffy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion