From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Why we are pro-life:
Date: 10 Jan 93 16:49:04 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1993Jan9.113651.26973@fuug.fi>, by an5200@anon.penet.fi:
> X-Anon-To: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
> Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
> Subject: Why we are pro-life:

Why is this article anonymously posted?
What the heck is alt.birthright??

[Interesting article deleted]

> However, there are some things I'd like to take issue with the
> extremists in the pro-life movement:
> 1. Why do you concern yourselves with homophobia?

I'm not sure exactly to whom you are referring, but I join you
in condemning homophobia.

> Can't you see they are finding out now that homosexuality can show
> up before birth?

"They" are!!???!!  Who are "they"?  Check your sources again.  I
think you'll find, at best, that there is *evidence* that homosexuality
has a *biological cause* based on the observation that *in adults*
there is a faint dimorphism in a certain brain region between
homosexuals and heterosexuals.

I can't imagine how one would go about testing the hypothesis that
"homosexuality can show up before birth."

> If your dislike of
> homosexuals is so terrible that you'd abort him/her, I certainly
> believe you have your priorities screwed.

Thanks for anonymously stating the obvious.  I wonder who the
outrageous extremists are whom you are addressing, and why
you bring them up, if indeed they exist.

> 2. What good is Operation Rescue and Lambs of Christ doing for the
> rest of us?

I guess they would argue that their overriding agenda is to save
babies.

> How do you expect to make new laws when you're breaking
> present ones? Doesn't that sound hypocritical?

Yes, I agree.  I suspect that many pro-lifers would join us here.

> 4. We need to get away from the references to pro-choicers as Nazi's.

Agreed.

> 5. Lay off of Murphy Brown. The only way to return America back to the
> days of the dominant two-parent family, is to drastically increase the
> abortion rate in order to lower the single-parent ratio.

Rubbish.  Ever heard of contraception?

> I don't know if this is going to be relevant in the next 4 years. We
> were able to talk before, when we had Republicans in the White House,
> slowing down a pro-choice takeover of the country. But with Bill
> Clinton in the White House, it's all over. We're looking at abortion
> being legal until the moment of birth,

Perhaps this cloud has a silver lining.  Maybe now we'll realize that
our arguments about the *legality* of abortion are a waste of time,
and our attempts to change the law are a failure.  Then, perhaps,
we can turn our attention to more important goals, including an
emphasis on the *morality* of abortion, and on encouraging people
to make the right choices both before and after pregnancy.

> in addition to it being free
> (at the taxpayers' expense), and also, we will be funding China's
> forced abortion program, fetal experimentation in which women will be
> encouraged to get pregnant just to kill the babies and provide fetal
> tissue transplants,

I don't think that's terribly likely.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu