From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Abortion labelling Re: Media Bias
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:12:05 GMT

In article <4395@news.duke.edu>, on 10 Aug 92 21:13:42 GMT,
eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>
>ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:
>|wmporter@jetson.uh.edu (Porter, William M.) writes:
>|>Personally, I would be happy to see both sides described as "pro-abortion" and
>|>"anti-abortion". That would clear things up a good bit.
>|>
>|I totally disagree. As a parallel example, somebody who argues that the
>|use of drugs should be legalized is not advocating drug usage, and is
>|not accurately referred to as pro-drugs.
>        Conversely, what about those who are not in favor of
>legalization? Are they accurately portrayed as anti-drugs? << Well,
>maybe. >>

Yes that would follow. A more precise description would simply be
anti-drug-legalization or pro-drug-criminalization, but that would
certainly be wordier.

>        Being in favor of legalizing marijuana or -- heaven forbid --
>cocaine is from my understanding of the argument an economically based
>stance: legalizing drugs will drive the prices down and thus the pushers
>won't get as much money because the production of the drug will be more
>safe and can be regulated by government. I don't think that the
>pro-abortion stance can really parallel the "pro-drug" stance*.

I actually prefer the moral stance -- that the government has no
business dictating to an individual what he may eat, drink, smoke, or
medicate himself with. But since there are an awful lot of people who
can never be convinced on that basis, but who can be persuaded when the
enormous costs of drug-enforcement are pointed out to them, I am willing
to tailor the type of argument to the particular audience.

All this goes to say that neither the pro-choice nor the
drug-legalization positions need be cast in economic terms.

>        * By the way, the term pro-drug has a different meaning in the
>pharmaceutical industry and departments of pharmacology everywhere. It
>is a precursor form of an active drug molecule that becomes coverted
>into an active form by the body's own biochemistry laboratory. (My
>simplistic description) I'd find it real funny to call someone a
>pro-drug, but I have a strange sense of humor.

Is 'pro' in this context an abbreviation for proto or prototype?

>
>|Pro-choice and anti-choice are right on the money. The issue is not
>|whether one personally favors abortion, but whether one believes that
>|the decision is rightfully left to the woman.
>        No the labels aren't [in a respectful tone of voice]. The issue
>IS about abortion. The current publicized debate centers on whether
>ABORTION should be legal. There is no debate with respect to freedom of
>choice because not all choices are being presented. What do you hear and
>see with respect to the abortion debate: if a woman has an unexpected
>pregnancy, the only choices you hear are abortion or carry the child to
>term and take care of it yourself. Adoption is certainly not considered
>a choice as it is likely to be considered "less humane or compassionate"
>than just aborting the fetus to the pro-abortion leaders.

I have never heard the tag "and take care of it yourself" applied to the
alternative of carrying the child to term. I agree that is not a
necessary result after the birth of the child, but these other
are irrelevant to the basic question. The only real alternatives with
regards to the right to have a legal abortion are whether to remain
pregnant or whether not to.

>        I personally have said, I am pro-choice, and the choice is
>simply whether or not to have sex at all. If you do, then more choices
>present themselves with regards to birth control, STDs, and
>responsibility if the woman becomes pregnant. This is how I think most
>people feel about this issue. It is the extreme pro-abortion leaders who
>place those women who have abortions on a pedestal and saying, "if it
>weren't for an abortion, she would be much worse off."

The pro-choice movement encompasses lots of different viewpoints.  Some
people believe in a right to abortion on demand, i.e., the government
has an obligation to fund an abortion if a woman is too poor to afford
one herself. I disagree with that position. Others argue that the fetus
is not a human being. To me that question is immaterial, in that even if
the fetus had all the rights of a human being, it would have no claim to
use the woman's body against her will.

Extremism is in the eye of the beholder. I reject the extreme positions
that a doctor can be compelled to perform an abortion against his own
will, or that a woman can be compelled to have an abortion (as in China,
when a woman already has her quota of one child) against her will, even
if she does not have the means to support the potential child.

>
>:>I will say that I was surprised to hear Peter Jennings, during the Democratic
>:>convention, refer to the "so-called Pro-Life movement." I dare say, if he had
>:>spoken of the "so-called pro-choice movement," the remark itself would have
>:>made the news and Jennings would have had to make a public apology. Yet the
>:>appellation "so-called" applies rather more accurately to "pro-choice".
>:>
>:I'm not really sure what Jennings had in mind. Perhaps it was the
>:probably strong correlation between the anti-choice folks and support
>:for capital punishment, raising thereby the question as to whether
>:"pro-life" is an accurate description.
>
>As I love to cite Elaine Boosler concerning the Republicans' stance on
>these issues: it's like going fishing. Toss back the little fish in the
>water, catch 'em when they're grown. :)

Now that I think about it, perhaps the right-to-life people may more
accurately be described as the right-to-birth.

>        I think the point being made here is that you never hear the
>pro-choice movement tagged with the "so-called" label. What do you think
>when you hear someone who is a "so-called environmentalist" or a
>"so-called doctor"? The "so-called" term is placed to bring a stigma of
>falsity, of being counterfeit and phony. You never hear someone called a
>"so-called pro-choice leader" in the news however. It's usually the
>"so-called pro-life movement."
>
I agree that the designation 'so-called' does have an implication of
non-genuineness. When applied to those opposed to abortion, I believe
that it is accurate, because, for the most part, they do not hold
that the right-to-life is absolute as they posture.

>        But don't try to mix the abortion argument with capital
>punishment. Fetuses don't have automatic rifles and practically
>extinguish families in one or two sweeps of ammo. Babies won't hack off
>a man's limbs or sacrifice women to ritualistic killings. A fetus has
>not acted to take someone's life or dignity away maliciously. A convict
>with his name destined for the electric chair or the bolus of poison
>most likely did.

I think it *is* a fair observation, though. If one believes in
capital punishment, one cannot be absolutely in favor of a right-to-
life.

>--
>Emil Thomas Chuck               DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
>Biomedical Engineer 1993        1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
>Duke University, Durham, NC     AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
>August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993  Duke football? What's that?
>
    ====Jack====