Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:05:45 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:


>Why is it that the typical pro-choicer: 
Not being a typical pro-choicer, and generally a conservative, let me answer 
the 'charges' below...

>1) Opposes war because it is killing? 
Usually, war is opposed because it is senseless killing over some trivial
piece of territory or some trivial political or economic point.  Occasionally, 
it is justified, but those occasions are severely limited.  (I believe that
in most cases, baring such cases as WWII, etc, that war is ususally the
wrong answer, and even WWII could have been stoped before war was necessary, 
as could WWI)

>2) Seeks a ban or massive waiting periods on guns because they may kill? 
The persons harmed are persons as defined under law, and to those who are
left-of-center, the necessity of gun ownership isn't understood to be a
'right'...it all has to do with the interpretation of the militia clause of
the second ammendment.  (I disagree with bans, but not reasonable waiting
periods)

>3) Favors spotted owls over the welfare of working-class human beings? 
No.  Balances nature against human needs.  It is only the most radical
environmental types who value animals over humans.  Most rational people
balance the two.  (I do, and think there is an acceptable compromise in
there somewhere)

>4) Opposes the death penalty because it is killing? 
It is clearly state sanctioned murder.  The usual response is that we, as a
society, have no more right to commit murder than the person we are
'punishing.'  I don't see how capital punishment is anything more than pure
retribution.  (I currently support capital punishment, so I don't fit this
sterotype)

>5) Wants to save the dolphins? 
Maybe because it isn't a good idea to wipe out animal species?

>6) And the whales? 
Ditto.

>7) And the eagles' eggs? 
Ditto.

>8) All because it is killing? 
No, becuase it does irreperable harm to the ecosystem...the whole point
here is balance.

>9) But then tries to justify abortion even though it is killing? 
But it's not so cut and dried.  This is a moral decision.  I agree that
it's wrong, but it's not my place to force my values on someone else, 
especially when those values are derived from my religion.

>10) Opposes animal testing? 
Again, this is a balance.  For all of those things that can be tested in
some other way, it should be done.  In the case where animal testing is
necssary, it should be done in a limited, humane way.  An example of a
really dumb idea: putting eye-shadow on rabbits' eyes to test it.  Is
eye-shadow so necessary that animals suffer?  Jeez, we are vain, aren't we?

>11) Would rather have human fetal testing?  
This is a tougher question, to which I don't have an answer.

>12) Opposes the choice to control one's own body with whatever
>pleasure-inducing drugs they want to put into themselves, because
>drugs are dangerous? 
Well, this is one of those questions that crosses thw whole politcal
spectrum.  Is drug use really a victimless crime?  The effects on society 
can be horrendous.  But, please realize, the right is just as nuts on this 
issue as the left.  (I'm fairly libertarian on this issue, along with seat-belt
laws, helmet laws, etc).

>13) Then turns around and opposes regulations on breast implants
>despite that some implants may be dangerous?  
Huh?  I think you have this one backwards.  Breast implants have been shown
to cause problems in SOME cases.  Thus, the governemnt has stepped in to
examine the issue.  Should companies be allowed to market any product for
any reason, and damn the consequences?

>14) And then shoots the 24 year old man who screws their 14 year old
>daughter? (Which is why they turn and oppose the death penalty...) 
I can't parse this one properly.  Are you implying that pro-choicers kill
adult males who have sex with their daughters?

>I just wanted to know about these inconsistencies of the pro-choice
>movement... 
You've listed a bunch of sterotypes that just don't fit!

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion