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