Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!saquigley
From: saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: open letter to pro-lifers
Message-ID: <7341@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 22-Mar-84 12:09:00 EST
Article-I.D.: watmath.7341
Posted: Thu Mar 22 12:09:00 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Mar-84 08:16:09 EST
References: <7257@watmath.UUCP>, <2040@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 283

Paul Dubuc's reaction to my letter:

} [From Sophie Quigley:]
} > 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
} > 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?
} 
} I think that it is generally accepted in the pro-life view that
} abortion is both a cause and an effect.  It is both a product of,
} and contributor to, a degraded view of human worth.

If this is true then that's alright.  However from the pro-life 
propaganda I have heard and seen, it seems that pro-life groups
are not united on that one.  I have heard it said quite often that
abortion will cause all sorts of atrocities.  It is this "cause" and
"effect" relationship that I cannot believe can be proven.  If you
believe so, then we agree.

} Also the acceptance of abortion is not recent.  It was practiced
} extensively by the ancient Greeks and Romans.  Both Plato (Republic)
} and Aristotle (Politics) condoned its practice for the good of the
} state.  Of course, the methods used then were extremely dangerous
} to the woman.

yes, but in our so-called "modern" world it is recent.

} >            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.
} 
} Again, I don't think you can say that the pro-life view puts abortion
} as the root cause of all crimes against humanity.  On the other hand
} I don't know how you can say that it is "hardly related".

Well we agree on this.  But I still believe that they are hardly related.
if they are, then please explain to me what the relationship is between
my abortion and the Guatemalan indian being killed.

} > 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.  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.
} 
} Who is to say that pro-life people are not just as much against this
} kind of killing?  This is beside the point, but I think that your
} use of the word "genocide" is an interpretation of events in those countries.
} I'm not supporting our government's involvement in those areas, but
} I distrust the news media's coverage of them.  Their coverage of
} events in Guatemala during the presidency Rios Montt was particularly
} biased and uninformed.  Such uncertianty as to what is really going
} on there makes informed involvement very difficult, if not impossible.
} Have you ever seen an interview with a Guatemalian Indian in the papers,
} or one with people (e.g. missionaries) that have worked closely with
} those indians for many years?  And how much have you heard of their
} plight lately (i.e. since Rios Montt was ousted)?

I did not say that all pro-life people are not against that form of killing,
but that if they aren't than they are not being consistent.  I have talked to
quite a few pro-life people mainly christians and many of them did not
disaprove of such killing.  It is to those people that my criticism is
directed, not to people like you.
As far as the media's coverage is concerned, I totally agree with you that it
is hard to find unbiasedness, but I believe that it unbiasedness is contrary
to human nature and so that nobody is completely unbiased.  That is why I am
not too concerned about it.  I just try to listen to as many different sources
as possible and hope that I can get as full a picture of what is happening as
possible.
As far as recent coverage of atrocities in guatemala or elsewhere in the world
is concerned, yes, I have been reading about it lately, and I have read
interviews with Salvadoran refugees and just yesterday about guatemalan peasants
reactions towards bags of flies that their government is dropping by plane
on their village.  It turns out that those flies are benefactory, but as the
government hasn't told the peasants what the flies are for, and as they are
used to so much brutality from their governments, the peasants cannot think for
a minute that there could be any good reason why those flies would be sent.
They go through all the pains of trying to figure out what these flies are for,
debating on the dangerousness of asking about them and complaining about them,
and then decide that the safest thing to do is just not say anything, but try
to burn the bags before they erupt. (Manchester Guardian march 4th).  I think
this story shows very clearly the state of repression in Guatemala.
Anyway, all this to say that there is coverage of events in the world, you just
have to look hard to find it.

} More on the subject, abortion seems to be an issue where it is very
} possible to have more informed opinions.  Also, its victims are completely
} innocent and defenseless.

It is always possible to have informed opinions on anything if you are really
interested.  You have in your country a wonderful act, the freedom of
information act.  For each issue that you are interested in there is a usually
a whole network of groups concerned with the same issues and from where you can
find information and tips on how to get information (e.g the pro-life network).
The power of these networks is not to be underestimated.  If it all fails, you
can often get some information by talking to the people involved or writing
letters.  Information is hard to find if you are waiting it to be spoon-fed to
you, but if you actively look for it, it is not that easy.  the greates thing
about America is that we do have the right to information here, and we should
take advantage of that right and not relinquish it to such groups as big media
corporations.
As far as innocence and defenselessness are concerned, I do not see what this
has to do with the debate.  Unless you believe in the death penalty, then there
is no reason why it is better to kill a guatemalan indian than kill a fetus.
And defenselessness is a very relative thing.  A gun cannot do much against a
bomb.
I am not saying of course that the fetus is not defenseless or innocent, but
that it is not the only one which is such.
} > 
} > 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.
} > 
} 
} I don't think the reasoning can be carried back this far.  How about
} swatting insects in the summer time only because they annoy us?  The
} issue here is human life, Sophie.  My neighbor's dog and the snail
} darter have more protection under the law than the human fetus.  Are
} you trying to say that disecting a frog in Biology 101 is really the
} cause of murder and genocide and all the other crimes against humanity?
} I don't think so.  Acceptance of disecting animals to obtain knowledge
} is a relatively new thing.  Murder and genocide have been around much
} longer than that. ( :-) sorry, can't resist).

Sorry, you can certainly go this far.  As far as I can tell, life is life,
whether it is vegetable, animal or human.  We learn to desensitise ourselves
to life by practising on "lower" forms.  Ask any pre-med student.  Part of
the goal of vivisection is to teach them to desensitise themselves to life.
When you perform vivisection in high school and you feel queezy about it, you
are forced to mentally convince yourself that the fact that you are killing
doesn't really matter, that it is ok in this case, because it is for the 
"greater good" of education.  This is desensitisation to life.  It starts
with animals and then it goes on to humans.
I cannot see why it is better to kill animals than humans except that we are
humans, so we would rather kill members of different species than members of
our own.
If you read what I said I didn't say that vivisection CAUSES murder, but that
desensitisation to life and death is learned on animals.  Before vivisection
for scientific purposes existed, it was still learned on animals in the form
of play and killing to get meat.
As far as the argument "animals have more protection under the law as fetuses",
this is simply not true, they have the same amount of protection.  I already
posted an article on this either here or in net.women, so I will not bother
repeating it, since it was ignored the first time.  And even if animals did
receive more protection, why shouldn't they?  Some animals like whales and
dolfins are much more evolved life forms than fetuses at their early stages.

} > 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.
} 
} How do you know this isn't happening, Sophie?  Did you read my
} response to the "abortion quiz" posted in net.women a few weeks
} ago?

Again, I am not critisising those who do (like people who work for birthright)
but those who don't.  Not enough pro-life groups worry about this.  Some even
come out AGAINST contraception.

} > Listen to the women telling you that they want safe  methods
} > of  birth  control  widely  available  and  work on creating
} > those.
} 
} Widely available to whom?

To those who want them.

} > 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?
} 
} Your're right there is a lot to be done.  And pro-life people are
} trying to do it.  But do you place the burden completely on their
} shoulders?  Why shouldn't pro-choice people care just as much about
} these things.  If abortion is a choice, the decision not to abort
} is also.  If any of the people in the above situations made the choice
} not to abort, would they receive any support for that choice from
} the pro-choice camp?  Or do you believe abortion is automatically
} the best choice and exempt youself from the caring you demand from
} the pro-life groups...leave it to them?

I am not placing the burden on pro-life people's shoulders.  pro-choice
groups are also working to get these things done.  i am merely pointing
out that people genuinely concerned about stopping abortion might be
better off fighting to minimise the incentives to it rather than try to stop
it.

} Also, I've often wondered why killing one's children is seen
} as a reasonable alternative to letting them be born and giving
} them to a loving home, even with the possibility of never seeing
} them again.  

The answer is that the children being killed are not often considered to be
children yet, and that with the adoption system organised the way it is, there
is no guarantee that the children will end up in a "loving home".  I have
seen cases of adopted children being mistreated (one in my own family) and not
loved enough.

} > Unless you are working on all these areas, along  with  your
} > pro-life  efforts,  I just cannot believe you genuinely care
} > about life.
} > 
} 
} There are a lot of people working in these areas, Sophie.  How
} can you expect the same group of people (those working against
} abortion) to spread themselves so thin.  You multiply the problems
} that pro-life people should be concerned about to the point of 
} impracticability and then say that they are not concerned about life
} because they don't cover all those areas.

I do not expect everybody to work on all those areas, but those who are
concerned about certain aspects of abortion to work on all the areas related
to these aspects.

} Do you really think that taking away all the incentive for abortion
} is the whole answer?  Would you accept any reasonable means of doing
} this, such as telling minors that engaging in sex is not good because
} they are not responsible and mature enough to deal with the consequences?
} Also, suppose we apply your reasoning to all forms of killing.  Do
} you think it will work?  Should we repeal laws against murder and instead
} concentrate on removing the incentives for it?

No, it will not work completely, but it would greatly reduce the need.  I
personnally don't believe that abortion is as evil as it is made out to be
so I am not too concerned about eliminating it.  I would like to see it
reduced greatly though, and I for one would like to be sure that I never
have to have one in my life.  I am willing to make some of the sacrifices
involved in avoiding them, but not all the sacrifices because I believe that
those sacrifices might be more detrimental for me than undergoing an early
abortion would be both for me and the fetus.

Why should we apply my reasonning to all forms of killing?  I believe it would
be a very good idea to try to apply my reasonning to all forms of killing, ie.
work on prevention rather than punishment;  I believe this would do a lot to
prevent murders, but it would never solve the problem.  However I consider
murder to be a criminal act, but I do not consider abortion to be a criminal
act, and I live in a society in which there is a concensus on the criminality of
murder, so this society should act accordingly to its beliefs.  I do not think
that murder is defensible except in the case of self-defence, so if this belief
is accepted by the society I live in, I do not see why murder laws should be
repelled.
} Paul Dubuc


				Sophie Quigley
			...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigley

} 
}