Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!ittvax!bunker!bunkerb!garys From: garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary Samuelson) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: open letter to pro-lifers Message-ID: <316@bunkerb.UUCP> Date: Tue, 20-Mar-84 14:05:38 EST Article-I.D.: bunkerb.316 Posted: Tue Mar 20 14:05:38 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 21-Mar-84 03:22:58 EST Lines: 135 >From bunker!ittvax!decvax!mcnc!akgua!clyde!watmath!saquigley Sun Mar 18 11:27:40 1984 Subject: open letter to pro-lifers Newsgroups: net.abortion In response to Sophie Quiqley's open letter to pro-lifers: > Has anybody who believes that abortion is a murder ever considered > seriously the possibility that abortion might be an effect rather > than a cause of our carelessness about life in general? I think > that history clearly points to this interpretation. I'll buy that. Abortion results from a careless attitude about life. Certainly, a careless attitude about life is a bad thing. Thus, it seems clear that abortion is a bad thing. (Typically bad causes have bad effects.) > Acceptance of abortion is a relatively recent phenomenon, less than > a century old. Murder, torture, genocide has been happening for as > long as we can remember in human history. How can it be claimed that > all of these crimes will be caused by the acceptance of abortion? You left out infanticide. Yes, all of these acts result from a careless attitude about life in general. Yes, we should try to change people's attitude about life in general (or should we? would it be a violation of rights to try to correct an attitude we think is wrong?) In the meantime, however, we need to prevent the actions of murder etc., which result from this bad attitude. After all, the potential victims, I would suppose, are more worried about the effect (their own deaths) than about the attitude. > They exist already and have existed for thousands of years. If you > are concerned about abortion creating these crimes against humanity, > then I suggest you wake up and realise that there is no need for > abortion to create those crimes and start do something about them > instead of working on something which is hardly related. I'm not concerned about abortion creating these crimes; I am concerned about abortion exacerbating the already widespread disregard for life. And why is abortion unrelated to these other crimes? Haven't we already agreed that they result from the same attitude? > Your government has already accepted genocide. It is done in South > America under the name of "american interests". The people being > killed there are clearly human, they have already been born and > proved that they are human and they are still being killed: indians > in guatemala, people opposing the governments of chile, uruguay, > el salvador, the list goes on. So if I try to stop what is happening in Guatemala, they will ask why I don't do something about Chile. And the Chileans will ask why I don't do something about Uruguay or El Salvador. The fact that problem B exists doesn't mean we should not deal with problem A. > If you are really worried that the genocide will reach home and > that there will be nobody there to help you out when it gets to > you because they will all have been killed than maybe you should > worry about those who are already been killed. And what do you propose I do about those who "are already been killed" ? > If on the other hand, you are simply worried about desensitisation > to life, then may I suggest that you also look around to see what > causes this desensitisation. It doesn't start with embryos being > killed, it starts with animals being killed and tortured. This > killing is institutionalised, it is called biology 101, where you > learn that it is ok to stick a pin in a frog's brain, squish things > around and then cut it up in little pieces while it is still alive, > all this in the name of "learning". There are more and more examples, > but it is clear that one of the first ways people are being > desensitised to suffering and killing is by teaching them to do it > on animals, and by teaching them to eat flesh and not think of the > animal where it came from as a living being, but as a meat machine. Excuse me, but I think you have strayed from the subject. I don't think that net.abortion is the place to discuss the morality of dissection or the morality of being omnivorous. (But, since you brought it up...) Assuming from the above that you are a strict vegetarian, why do you not consider plants to be living beings? Are you really saying that the problem of abortion is a result of the human tendency to eat meat? > If finally what horrifies you is the idea that somebody would want > to kill their own children, then maybe you should look around to > see why they want to kill them and work on removing the incentives > rather than preventing the killing. Listen to the women telling > you that they want safe methods of birth control widely available > and work on creating those. Listen to the people telling you > that they cannot have children because they do not have time to > take care of them, and work on creating easily accessible day care > facilities. Listen to those telling you that they cannot afford > children and help them financially. Listen to the parents who tell > you that they cannot give a child up for adoption to strangers because > they cannot conceive of ever being allowed to see their child again, > and start to work on less punitive adoption systems. There is a > lot to be done, but in the long run, won't it be more useful than > stopping each woman one by one from having an abortion? Lots of people don't think they have the time or the financial resources to care for children, until they have one. But in the case of those who really can't, and give a child up for adoption, would you allow the natural parent, years later, take the child away from its adoptive parents, who have wanted the child from the beginning? But aren't you changing horses in midstream? In a previous article, you said that forcing a woman to carry a child to term and force her to raise it was "punishment." Now you are saying that taking the child away and not allowing the mother to care for it is "punitive." And, as if it's any of your business, I have financially helped people who could not afford to take adequate care of their children. Have you? > Unless you are working on all these areas, along with your pro-life > efforts, I just cannot believe you genuinely care about life. I'm willing to do my share, but you ask the impossible. Look at the list of problems: * Murder * Torture * Genocide * Guatemala * Chile * Uruguay * El Salvador * Dissection * Carnivorism * Parenting * Birth Control * Day Care * Financial Aid * Adoption No one person can possibly work on all of these problems; therefore, you are saying that you will never believe that I genuinely care about life. What are *you* doing about each of these problems? Or do you admit that you do not genuinely care about life? Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!bunkerb!garys