From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy)
Subject: Abortion "debaters" (was: Re: walking down to the student center)
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:57:07 GMT

shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:

>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:


>>I think instead of "pro-choice" or pro-abortion" we should use a term
>>that is more accurate.  The term "pro-infanticide", or more simply,
>>"Pro-Murder" is the correct term that should be used, since after all,
>>abortion is the outright killing of children.

>So you are saying that killing = murder?  By that reasoning, all wars
>should be illegal and we should round up soldiers and incarcerate them
>for murder, right?

>>With that line of reasoning, if abortion is murder, then those doctors
>>that perform abortions are therefore murderers.  Going further, if abortion
>>is murder, and those that perform it are murderers, and if murder is a
>>capital crime, then technically they should face execution-right?? I mean,

>And the executioners should then be executed because they too committed
>murder, and their executioners should be executed, etc., etc..

>The movement is Pro-Choice.  They do not advocate abortions as the 
>solutions to unwanted pregnancy.  They advocate the right of a woman
>to make this decision for herself, and to ensure that all options
>are safe and legal.

>There is a concensus in this country, that the deliberate killing of a private
>citizen by another private citizen is murder and is wrong.  Therefore, it
>is illegal to do so.  There is no such concensus on the issue of abortion.
>You can find as many people who think it is okay, as you can find people
>who think it is wrong.  Therefore, there is no justification to outlaw it.

>If you believe abortion is wrong, don't have one.  That is your private
>decision.  My decision is also private and it is also mine.  It is not
>a subject for government legislation.

I think the main problem is that both sides are putting their primary
efforts into protecting/banning abortion. If each side put half of their
effort in preventing the NECESITY for abortion then this country would
be a lot better. 

Don't give me this bull that your side (whatever side) is soooo
concerned with the social conditions that make abortion an attractive
alternative. The fact is that neither the abortion rights or the
anti-aboritonists really put very much time, effort and publicity
into trying to improve the social conditions. Some effort, perhaps;
1/2 as much effort as trying to ban/protect abortion: not even close.
You don't see 750,000 people march on Washington to try to grant everyone
the right to decent health care or any other social program. You don't
see people bombing schools that are doing a poor job of educating young
people about safe sex and safest sex. 

I heard an appropriate comment on the abortion "debaters": most
debaters try and shed light on a situation, abortion debaters are more concerned
with shedding heat.

The fact is that both sides are putting a disproportionate amount of 
their energy into screaming "baby killer" and "woman hater" at someone
instead of addressing the real problems and causes of abortion.
---
Bri Farenell				"It is better to have clean hearts and
Clarkson '95				 dirty hands than dirty hearts and
farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu	 clean hands."  ---Rev Jesse Jackson

CLINTON/GORE AND BOB ABRAMS (US SENATE) IN '92
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING MEMBER OF THE ACLU
		
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc