Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 03:24:47 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: prolifers and informed discussion

       Peter says:

Let's see--the fact that the people who advocate restrictions or
outright prohibitions on abortion are unable to explain WHY we should do
so, without relying on theology, or to refute significant arguments on
the other side, is not a reason to refrain from enacting their desires
into law.  Is that what you're saying?

       I have mentioned here many times that the prolife viewpoint is
       not exclusively religious.  I can't help it if you don't
       believe me.  Also, please explain why it is unreasonable for
       prolifers to refuse to accept the concept of personhood
       (which is a concession to the foundational arguments of the
       other side), but it is not unreasonable for prochoicers or
       proabortion activists to refuse to accept the existence of
       life as a basis for discussion (which concedes the fundamental
       point of the prolife side).

       Regarding shepherding homes, etc.:

We had both long before there was a "pro-life" movement.  You may recall
(or then again you may not) that my argument was that if the pro-life
movement wanted to have a significant and POSITIVE effect on society,
they would make these the spearhead of their program.  They have instead
chosen to direct their efforts toward changing the law (a fine thing to
do, if counterproductive), and interfering with the freedom of women
until the law is changed to reduce or remove that freedom (a rather less
fine thing to do).

        Actually, we *didn't* have both before there was a prolife
        movement.  If you mean *we* as in the United States, the
        United States came long after the beginning of the prolife
        movement.  If you mean *we*, as in the world, the notion
        of sanctity of life and the determination to end abortion,
        infanticide, and exposure, arose as an object of direct
        action against the ancient Roman empire, in which times
        there were no such facilities as you speak of above.
            Furthermore, if you believe that the prolife movement
        is not CENTRALLY focused on sidewalk counseling, shepherding
        homes, adoption, and crisis pregnancy intervention, you
        have been listening to what the media is telling you,
        and are not savvy enough to understand that the media's
        focus is on the exciting stuff.  But even in articles
        about Operation Rescue regarding a specific event, you
        will often find brief mention of a long-standing crisis
        pregnancy center (which mention is buried under 5 pages
        of criticism of OR and its leadership).
             Don't believe everything you read.  Check out the
        yellow pages for a CPC near you.

> He stated it in a comment on an ad suggesting that, one which had
> offended one of the pro-choice folks.  You know the ad; "life is
> a wonderful choice".

        Actually, the line is "Life:  what a beautiful choice."

Nothing at all wrong with that ad.  What's offensive is when supporters
of the ad start blaming people for making different choices.

         If people feel convicted by that ad, perhaps it's time
         they re-thought their own choices.  Stating the wrongness
         of an act is not the same as "blaming" the actor.  If
         prolifers "blame" anyone or anything, they blame society
         as a whole for allowing the act to take place.

                                              ---Missy Justice
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU