From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because:
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 01:30:20 GMT

In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug28100726@conus.shell.com> rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
>knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
> >rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
> >>knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
> >> >orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:
> >> >>If only it were possible to take fetuses from 
> >> >>their unwanting mothers and give them to homes where they are wanted.
> >>
> >> >If that were true, what do you think the chances are that one to two million
> >> >extra children (predominantly non-white btw) will find homes?
> >>
> >>Some would call this a racist statement.  I'll just call it ignorant.
>	[figures deleted]
>
> >Fine, but the issue was not the number of abortions, but the number of
> >children up for adoption.  My issue was with adoption, not abortion.
> >If you can supply similar numbers for children up for adoption, I would be
> >very interested to see them.
>
>Your remark was about "extra children" -- I took that to mean those that
>would have been aborted but instead were taken from the womb to be
>adopted.

I see that I wasn't clear. The fact is that since there is an extraordinarily
high demand for white children, if abortion was outlawed, those white 
children 'put on the market' so to speak, would be snapped up immediately
and there would be an even greater number of non white children waiting
to be adopted than there already is. The number of white versus non-white
fetuses aborted is almost irrelevant to that issue due to the outrageous
demand for white children.

Sorry for not being clear originally.

> >I don't understand why you consider a comment which makes a racial distinction,
> >racist, but I apologize if you took it that way.  It was not intended to 
> >be racist.
>
>I didn't call it racist.  But the reason it looks racist is that you implied
>that abortions are performed on non-whites hugely out of proportion with the 
>general population distribution, and you had no basis for saying that.

True. Didn't mean to say that though.

[stuff deleted]

> >>Just because you see the abortion
> >>protests and don't see the protesters' other actions, don't assume
> >>that they are not active in helping the needy.
>
> >I'm not assuming, I'm not seeing it. If you can provide some evidence of a
> >similarly massive movement by the pro-lifers to try to take care of the 
> >*existing* unwanted children, I will be glad to hear about it.
>
>Crisis Pregnancy Centers counsel women and arrange for adoption.  They're
>also under fire for trying to talk women out of abortions, when the women
>went there thinking they were abortion clinics, but that's another topic.
>
>Churches, responsible for the bulk of the pro-life movement, teach values
>besides stopping abortion.  Large numbers of foster parents became foster
>parents because of their religious beliefs.  As for a "massive movement",
>there isn't a need for one, because it's not controversial.

A massive movement *is* needed for the large number of non-white children
needing homes and the high degree of racial preference arising from racial
stigma. I don't see that being adressed in *any* amount, let alone small
amounts.  As far as churches being responsible for 'teaching values', that
won't work. Not because it can't, but, as a pragmatist, i  see that my 
values are very different from most churches and I, along with many other
people, would prefer that the churches keep their particular, say 'family
values', out of my face.


>I might refer you to the book "Completely Pro-Life".  If you're interested,
>I can get author, ISBN, etc.  Caveat -- I haven't read it, my wife has.

If it can point to similarly large movements by the pro-life faction to take
care of current problems, before generatimg more by outlawying abortion, I
would very much like to hear about it.

> >Perhaps they are blowing up group homes now?
>
>Nuts blow up things -- this is not typical of the pro-life movement,
>even if you believe they are nuts.  When was the last clinic bombing,
>anyway?

Not long enough ago, I'm afraid.  A good friend of mine was a social worker
in Oakland. The last I heard from her, she was cleaning up fire damage from
a firebombing.  That was about six months ago.  Luckily, nobody was in the
office.

You see, I have a personal interest in working *against* the pro-life movement
because I see them as more of a threat to life than an aid.  Their 'aid'
is more of a danger and a crime than it is a help. It certainly jeopardizes
everyone's individual control over their bodies. I see the pro-life 
movement as an indication of a larger problem with fascism over the Reagan-
Bush era. Their terms have seen an unprecedented increase in racial violence,
class separation, social program cuts, education cuts, etc. It all points
to a domineering upper class of 'do gooders' who know what's best for your
family, your money and your body and I will not stand for it. That's about
the end of that.



-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity