Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!duke!mcnc!unc!tim
From: tim@unc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: "Two sides to abortion - (nf)"
Message-ID: <5545@unc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Jul-83 11:52:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.5545
Posted: Tue Jul 12 11:52:51 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Jul-83 20:09:13 EDT
References: ihlpf.161
Lines: 28


    If people are really interested in changing minds in this
discussion, might I suggest the adoption of a neutral terminology for
the people on either side?  The virtues of such are, I believe, self-
evident.  Name-calling never changed a mind.

    The word "pro-life" is unacceptable because it is clearly meant to
imply that those holding a contrary position are "anti-life".  This is
a lie.  In addition, it is pure rehetoric -- it says nothing about the
actual issues being addressed.  Equally unacceptable is the phrase
"pro-abortion".  I don't know ANYONE who is pro-abortion.  Everyone
seems to agree that it is an unpleasant and traumatic operation.

    I would be willing to accept "pro-choice" for those who favor laws
supporting a woman's right to choose an abortion.  The phrase "anti-
abortion" seems to sum up the feelings of those who are against legal
abortion.  Let's use these in order to avoid name-calling, all right?

    Finally, if you disagree with me, please just ignore the article.
I really don't want to get into an argument over this sort of thing.
I'm just doing my part to try to keep things reasonable.

______________________________________
The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney

duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill