Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: open letter to pro-lifers
Message-ID: <2040@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Mar-84 12:33:09 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.2040
Posted: Mon Mar 19 12:33:09 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Mar-84 01:39:57 EST
References: <7257@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 152

[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.

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.

>            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".

> 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)?

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.
 
> 
> 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).

> 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?

> 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?

> 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?

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.  

> 
> 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.

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?

Paul Dubuc