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: Open letter to pro-lifers, round 2 Message-ID: <320@bunkerb.UUCP> Date: Thu, 22-Mar-84 14:38:56 EST Article-I.D.: bunkerb.320 Posted: Thu Mar 22 14:38:56 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Mar-84 21:16:43 EST Lines: 68 Round 2, re Sophie Quiqley's open letter to pro-lifers: Incidentally, I use the terms 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' reluctantly; does anyone have a better idea? > I was mainly replying to the argument: "abortion will cause all > sorts of atrocities to happen" by saying that these atrocities > do happen anyway, so if it is these atrocities that people want > to avoid by making abortion illegal, they are off the mark and > should probably concentrate their efforts on the already existing > atrocities. It is true that eliminating abortion will not eliminate other atrocities. So, I suppose I agree that anyone who is concerned about abortion because of a belief that other atrocities will result should deal with the other atrocities more directly. > I next replied to the "abortion will desensitise us to the value > of life" argument by pointing out that this desensitisation does > occur much earlier and is learned on animals rather than on fetuses. Yes, but it is valid to say that abortion will increase, not decrease, the general disregard for the value of life. > I was just trying to point out that the arguments saying that abortion > will be the source of all evil are off the mark and people who are > worried about evil or its source should probably concentrate their > efforts on the source or on the existing evil. We all know that the love of money is the source of all evil ( :-) ). > Now abortion can be considered evil in itself without looking at the > alleged "consequences". If people are against abortion in itself > because it is evil and not because it will "cause" more evil then I > was merely pointing out that it might be a better idea for them to > work on reducing the need for abortion rather than outlaw it. If something being evil is not adequate grounds for outlawing it, then what is? Perhaps more to the point, it is all very well to talk about dealing with causes rather than symptoms. But should we not deal with both? If I may extend an analogy, suppose you have tonsilitis, and your physician determines that a tonsilectomy is in order. He will remove your tonsils (thus dealing with the problem) as soon as it is practical to do so, but in the meantime he gives you something to ease your sore throat (dealing with the symptoms). And before all of that, he has to convince you that you do indeed have tonsilitis. (note generic use of 'he' in this paragraph) Now the human race has a problem: a general disregard for the value of life, even human life. This problem results in everything from driving dangerously to occassional attempts to conquer the world. Present company excepted, there seems to be difficulty in convincing humanity that it even has a problem, never mind that it needs help. So, let us proclaim the value of life. But if we proclaim the value of life, we must practice what we proclaim, and try to prevent the unnecessary destruction of life. Now, I find it difficult to believe that most abortions are matters of necessity. Am I wrong? > Does that make more sense? Yes, actually. Am I also making any sense? Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!bunkerb!garys