From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Janus I: HERE I STAND, Part 1
Keywords: viability, double standards, party line
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:35:12 GMT

Let me see what I can do to respond to your points.  First off:

} >... I don't beat around the bush when it comes to this: I feel that
} >no human being should have the right to use somebody else's body
} >against the other person's will, no matter whether the human being is
} >a fetus or an adult, even if death be the result.
} 
} I'd like to see the rationale for this.  If it is in the post you
} mention below, please e-mail me a copy.

I base my opinion here on my firm belief that I would rather die than
let someone else have control over my body against my will.  If I want
to donate a kidney to somebody, then that would be a great thing for
me to do; if a woman wants to carry a fetus to term, then that's very
noble of her; in neither case does anybody have any right to use
either of our bodies for the benefit of somebody else without our consent.

Morality and legality are not the same thing, and I personally value
the quality of life over the quantity of it ("keeping it alive at all
costs").  If I want to be selfish and not undergo a simple medical
procedure to donate blood to somebody in need, maybe that's downright
nasty of me, but I should not be therefore restricted from making that
choice.  It's my body; it's my blood.  In the same way I would fear a
government which would deny a pregnant woman any way to get a fetus
out of her body.

} >If you have pro-choice opinions, don't be afraid to voice them! 
} 
} It's not a matter of fear, but of budgeting efforts to where they seem
} to be most needed.  I thought I could improve my credibility by refuting
} slanderous accusations against me, but I now am ready to move on to
} less of a King Canute project.

No matter where you go, no matter what you do, there will always be
people who wish you were someplace else doing something else.  (This
is a rule of life that applies to everybody.)  The key is to listen to
their complaints long enough to get a feel for what they don't like
about what you're saying, but not so long that you start to take
things personally.  The confrontational tone I've seen you take in
some of your posts really isn't going to get you anything but more
flame wars.  If you enjoy that, fine (the net's a good playground
sometimes), but if you want to influence people, start by appealing to
their logic.  If you flame them, they will flame you back.

} >It is difficult, I admit, to deal with many pro-lifers I find here.
} ...
} 
} Maybe you expect more of my camp.  I can show you lots of things by
} pro-choicers, especially Mark Cochran, Humphrey, and Novak that beat
} anything I've seen from any of the above.
} 
 [ examples deleted ]
}
} Additional examples on request, but I would like to see some examples
} you can display in answer to the above.

I won't.  Personal attacks have never been my cup of tea, and I refuse
to get involved in them.  What gets me riled up is when people set up
a straw man and attack either side for being something it's not; when
I see this, I may rail about the poster not bothering to understand
the issues, but I'll always try to explain my disappointment by
stating why the post was wrong about whatever.  The only reason I may
seem thoroughly exasperated by Suzanne is that I am; she seems to hold
a firm belief that all pro-choicers like killing infants or something
like that, and she has in the past failed to demonstrate even the most
basic understanding of the pro-choice side when I directly asked her
to.  I would be perfectly happy with any pro-lifer if only he or she
were to acknowledge my opinions and show some attempt to comprehend them.

} >>"Now if a pro-lifer dared to use ["Bitch"] on talk.abortion, especially
} >>in such a context, he'd be called a misogynist, sexist, and lots of even
} >>more derogatory names, and there'd be no end to how many denunciations like
} >>that would follow, nor for how long they would go on, and half a dozen
} >>women and a number of men would say, `Your credibility no longer exists.'"
} 
} >If it had been in response to a post like Suzanne's, I would have
} >applauded it. 
} 
} In the post, there was a somewhat personal question directed at Suzanne,
} who declined to answer it.  That was all.
} 
} Care to retract what you have just said?  I'm hoping, as I said, for
} an O'Dwyer surrogate, not a Brian McBean clone.

If this was all the post was, then I apologize for having missed the
point, and I retract my statement.

} >I look forward to discussing abortion with you in the future,
} >especially if you've turned over a new leaf and will be writing
} >"kinder gentler" posts from now on.  ;-)
} 
} I'll try.  Meanwhile, there are a few delicate issues I have
} introduced above, and am waiting for your reaction to them.

I hope I've responded to your satisfaction.  You'll find I don't care
to flame pro-lifers on a personal level, I don't like making cheap
one-liners (unless I'm in a bad mood, so if I do, stop me), and I
don't like misrepresenting the situation.  Abortion is a battle of
rights between a woman's claim on her body and a fetus's claim on its
life, and I do my best to never lose sight of this.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion