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