From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Question for the Pro-Lifers or Anti-Abortionists or whatever
Date: 6 Nov 1992 11:12:38 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <73777@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <1db5u1INN6d7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>|Doesn't it sound unspeakably cruel to bring pressure to bear on an unwilling
>|woman - maybe your own daughter someday - in an attempt to force her to give
>
>If you are pleading on the half of incest or rape victims, that is
>one matter.  However, the MAJORITY do not fall into this and they 
>DO NOT fall into this supposed UNWILLING catagory.  They may and 
>probably do fall into the UNPLANNED or rather LACK OF PLANNING 

How is the use of contraception lack of planning?  In the case of a
genuinely careless conception - how does this make forcing the woman
to give birth less cruel?

[...]

>some supposed man to gain acceptance.  Everyone needs to learn self-control
>and self-acceptance.  One doesn't really gain either by having sex.

Does one gain it by forcing unwilling women to give birth?  Which category do
people who do that fall into?  Do you fall into that category?  Are you a
heartless extremist?

>|birth?  Pregnancy, and birth are not trivial matters to undergo - birth in
>|particular can be excruciatingly painful and humilating (I am told) and is
>|not something to be pressed on anyone against their will.
>
>The painful part, if you are talking about labor, can be tremendously
>reduced if not eliminated with some of the modern pain medicines
>(e.g., epidurals?).

Tell it to your mother, and save others the trouble of punching your lights
out.

>As far as the humiliating part goes, most women see their doctors 
>regularly - similar humilation occurs whether they are pregant or not.  

Medical care should be humiliating?  Are you nuts?

>However, the outcome of the pregancy can be tremendously exhilarating.

The outcome of the pregnancy can be death, permanent disability or financial
hardship.  That's alright for racing drivers, but it's not everyone's idea of
exhilaration.

>|So why do pro-lifers seek to enact such legislation?  I hope that you are not
>
>To keep one from doing things that hurt them, one often has to put a
>penality on the action.  When one is raising children they just don't
>let them play with fire nor stick their hands in the electrical outlet,

Then maybe I should force you to give birth, so you don't play with matches
either?  In your case it may well be too late - you show every sign of
regularly sticking your hand in electrical outlets.

>but they warn and punish to show them there is a reason to avoid such
>things.  Later they are able, the the child is teachable through reasoning,
>to teach the child the WHY about fire and electricity.

Women show every sign of being receptive to reasoning.  So am I.  Have you
tried it?

>Look at drugs - people are moving into education.  They let it slide
>too long.  The same needs to be done with sex conduct (i.e., self-control.)

People are moving into education?  You have a problem with this?

>|interested in doing that, now or ever.  Would you do it in order to save
>|lives?  The law does not force _us_ to save lives, why should it force
>|pregnant women?  For example, I've never encountered a pro-lifer saying that
>|people should be forced to give blood.  And _that_ is only a small jab with a
>|needle...
>
>The law does not necessarily force ANY good behavior.  It keeps some of
>the real bad stuff from happening though.  

It doesn't stop people from not donating organs, blood, and otherwise saving
lives.  And some people save lives anyway, though most don't.  There may be a
lesson for you there.

>People are hearlded for rushing into a burning building to save someone's
>life.  The law doesn't force them to do so, but out of love and concern
>for another they do.  

Some people are 'hearlded' for rushing into a burning building to save
someone's liberty.  Some people rush into burning buildings because they
forgot their wallet.   And sometimes people rush into burning buildings too
late to save anybody.  Sometimes those people are women.

>There are many things the law prohibits, but against the good things
>(love, mercy, justice, self-control) there is no law.  We should be
>trying to exceed in doing these good things and not living down in the 
>gutter and trying to get by on the skin of our teeth, but live above the law.

Live above the law if you like, I'm not going to stop you.

>On the topic of forcing one to save anothers life, the courts often
>make it prohibitive to even try, for the malpractice suits drain the
>system.

So RTLs shouldn't take suits against abortionists I guess.

[...]

>Convincing (educating) people that abortion is wrong is commended,
>as is educating people on how to use/control and respect their own
>bodies and minds as well as the bodies and minds of others.  The
>same goes for those who bomb - they need to be educated that this is
>not good.  I think organized non-violent protest are worthwhile.

Fine, but propaganda is not education.

>|Most people _are_ convinced that abortion is wrong.  Most people find
>|abortion repugnant, and even those few who do not would like to see it made
>
>Yet, two wrongs are not what is needed.

How many do you want?  Three?

>|unnecessary.  To do that _peacefully_, and _humanely_ means not to do it by
>|bombing clinics or passing laws.   You might instead support measures which
>|make birth control and sex education more widely accessible - you could also
>|support measures which eliminate social injustices, especially those which
>|impoverish women.  This will bring many benefits - and one them will be a
>|reduction in abortions which are due to poverty and ignorance.
>
>In different words, I believe, I said much of the same thing above.

Does this mean you agree with the sentiments expressed in _these_ words  or not?

>|You can be - _must_ be - truly pro-choice in order to be truly pro-life.  The
>|right to give birth comes with a right to abort, however unpalatable.  The
>
>Let's get past this RIGHT stuff and move the issue to a higher level -
>"one of love and desire for the best" and not one of "I can do this because
>it is legal" type of attitude.

Have a go if you like.  In your attempt, please do not resort to unworthy
propaganda.

>The OPPORTUNITY to give birth comes with the RESPONSIBILITY
>to not despise human life and the RESPONSIBILITY to not abort it.

If you're talking about your personal morality, fine and dandy.  If you're
talking about the law then unfine and undandy.

>|right to save life comes with a right not to, however unpalatable.  And
>
>The OPPORTUNITY to save a life brings with it the RESPONSIBILITY to save it.

See above.

>|indeed, many women have _no_ choice in the matter - they find that their
>|circumstances are such that their only moral option is _not_ to save a life
>|- not today, not this time.  We are not entitled to their reasons.
>
>In practically every other area of life people are called on the carpet
>and called to court to give their reasons for being IRRESPONSIBLE.  Look
>at the vigor people had about bringing EXXON to trial for their oil spill.
>Look at the legal matters arising over the Iran and Iraq situations.

I guess this would be a problem if abortion were irresponsible, but it
isn't.

>People want responsibility from everyone else, but themselves.

Yourself included.

>|All the best Jeff, and may all your choices be good ones.
>
>May you be responsible.

May you sleep well, 24 hours a day.

>For Christ and His Kingdom,
>Richard Pitts

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion