From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What do you REALLY mean?
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:13:44 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <92094.125105MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu> MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>I'm new to this news group, and in fact I only get a chance to read the
>postings about once a week, so please excuse me if I rehash some points that
>have already been made.  Nevertheless, I have been reading with great
>interest, and in some cases mild amusement, the various opinions among
>members.  I am not interested in hurling obsceneties back and forth nor am I
>interested in empty accusations or biased statistics.
	Hmmmm...are you sure you're in the right group??  >:-)>

 However, there are
>alot of good arguments on both sides of the issue that I am interested in
>pursuing.
>
>Pro-lifers temd to come under regular attack because they don't provide for
>ALL of the unwanted chidren in the world, and that seems to conflict with
>their proclimation that life is precious.  In the same manner of thinking,
>there appears to be a disparity between what pro-choicers say they believe
>in and their standard arguments.  We often hear that one is 'personally not
>in favor of abortion, but feel that its the woman's right to decide for
>herself'.  But the arguments put forth by these people are generally
>pro-abortion and not pro-choice, per se.  If one were really pro-CHOICE,
>he/she would be able to see the merits of all choices available, i.e.
>abortion, adoption, or keeping the child.  Why do we never hear pro-choice
>advocates discuss the merits of keeping an unplaned child, regardless of any
>potential hardships?
>
	Well, for one thing, no one is trying to make adoption illegal, to the
best of my knowledge.  If some group were trying to ban that, I'd be protesting
that as well.  The debate focuses on abortion for the obvious reason that
this is the activity under question.
	No one on the pro-choice side denies the merits of the options you
have referred to.  They just don't want to see them become the *only* ones
legally available.  Adoption or raising the child are perfectly fine
alternatives *if the pregnant woman wishes to choose them*.  But abortion 
should be one of the choices available to her and the final decision should be
hers and not the State's.  This is the basic pro-choice position.

>For example, there has been much discussion about the recent TV adds
>promoting the choice of adoption, yet form the "pro-choice" group we hear
>dispariging comments.  Thus I tend to believe that many in this news group
>are only in favor of one "choice".  'The adds are made to make us feel
>guilty...' I really have to wonder about a person's convictions if he/she
>can be made to feel guilty by a TV commercial.  Is there some underlieing
>guilt present to begin with?  If so, does it stem from the inherent
>understanding that the fetus IS a human life, and that abortion is contrary
>to maternal and paternal instinct?  You may be thinking 'it is a traumatic
>and difficult decision to make...'.  In such a case, then the answer to the
>above questions is 'yes'.  In that regard, it seems to me that most
>arguments in favor of abortion are simply attempts at rationalization in
>one's own mind and are not specifically intended to convince/convert the
>pro-life people.
>
	Here we go again.  The old "if you *really* thought about it, you'd
agree with us" line.  The implication, of course, is that those who oppose
you are not allowed to be anything other than stupid, evil, or at best
misguided or self-deceiving.  I wouldn't characterize all pro-lifers that
way.  Why aren't you capable of the same courtesy?
	BTW, I'm not the least bit interested in "converting" you or anyone
else to my sincerely-held belief (difficult as that notioin may be for you to
accept) that a two-celled organism (the immediate product of conception) can
be considered *exactly* the same, legally, as a five-year-old child.  I'm
only interested in preventing this (to my mind) bizarre notion from being
enacted into law.
	What you believe is your own business.  When you try to use the force
of The State to enforce it, however, it's my business as well.
	By the way, what happened to your earlier lack of interest in "empty
accusations"?

>In response to a recent posting titled "The Implications of Abortion on our
>Society", (franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca), Steve Franklin came under considerable
>criticism for his views.  I think his basic premise is correct: if one is
>willing to conform to traditional values and rules of basic morality, a
>great many problems facing society today can be avoided.  I was recently at
>a dinner party where an individual was telling how 'clever' she had been in
>her arguments in court against having her driver's license revoked for
>numerous speeding violations.  I couldn't help but think "wouldn't it be
>easier (and wiser) to just drive the speed limit"?
>
	Ah, but whose tradition and whose morality?  Yes, I know, yours and
Steve Franklin's, of course.  No others need apply.  "Traditions" which
treat women as second-class citizens are well dispensed with, IMHO.  And
"morality" that begins with the notion that nearly all forms of sexual
activity are inherently evil strikes me as somewhat perverse.
	On the other hand, I agree with the comment about driving the speed
limit, although I fail to see the connection between that and your earlier
comment.  Subscription to a conservative Chrisitan value set is harldy a
prerequisite for acceptance of the rule of law.  Nor, judging from the 
many reports of clinic bombings and death threats, is it a guarantee of same.

>
>Mark E. Kubiske, PSU

Chuck

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion