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!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Smugness (4th of 4)
Message-ID: <4330@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Dec-84 20:17:01 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4330
Posted: Tue Dec 11 20:17:01 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Dec-84 06:06:39 EST
References: <1545@pur-phy.UUCP> <4261@cbscc.UUCP>, <1566@pur-phy.UUCP>, <4327@cbscc.UUCP>, <4328@cbscc.UUCP> <4329@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 145


}>It is only consistent for pro-lifers to care just as much for the born
}>as the unborn and I think, as a people, they do.  Not all pro-life people
}>picket clinics.   Some work in pregnancy distress centers like my wife
}>and Liz.  Some are involved in combatting child abuse (or did you think
}>only pro-choice people did that?) 
}
}When Jesse Helms & the Moral Majority give up all idea of their infamous
}"Family Protection Act" *or* when the bulk of anti-abortionists
}disavow that group, I will believe that anti-abortionists care
}about child abuse. Until then, your efforts to combat child abuse
}are countered by your allies' efforts to *promote* it.

Well, to disavow the the Moral Majority's effort completely would
mean to reject its efforts in creating hundreds of "pregnancy distress
centers" in this country.  Here is an example of the artificial way
that you neatly divide the prolife camp and expect me to reject completely
the efforts of whole groups, throwing out the good with the bad.  I
don't make devils out of Helms or Fallwell or anyone else.  I prefer to be
critical of individual actions.  

When you suggest throwing out the Family Protection Act, you should
at least give reasons.  (Or would you like us to follow your advice
blindly?--not a good pro-choice position.)  When you accuse prolifers
of being allied with efforts to promote child abuse, you'd better back
it up with some reasoning and facts.

}
}>and some are helping in prisions where
}>a lot of those kids end up (like Charles Colson -- I know he's pro-life).
}>His Prision Fellowship organization is more active in meeting the needs
}>of prisoners and pushing for criminal justice reform than many I can
}>think of.  You seem to require an equal level of involvement in all
}>these areas from every pro-life individual (at least the ones who picket
}>PP -- Was Liz one of them?)
}
}No, I don't "require" an "equal level of involvement." My point is that
}making moral decisions almost invariably involves setting moral
}priorities. I cannot understand how someone could think that a
}fetus is more of a moral priority than a living human being.
}I don't think anti-abortionists should "care just as much for
}the born as for the unborn;" I think they should care a lot more
}for the born.

But you have given no reason that they should.  As I said before, prolifers
are the only ones who care for the born.  You would have them turn away
from that and adhere to your priorities without giving a reason.  This
only seems to be a couch for the opinion that no one should care for the
unborn.  

Would you demand that animal rights activists give up their priorities
for yours?  How would you order other human life priorities (other than
abortion) for us?  Is child abuse deserving of more attention than
helping the handicapped, elderly, minorities?  What is at the top?  If
you are going to play one concern against another why don't you tell us
what is *the* most important thing to be concerned with so that we can
all drop everything else and rush over and solve that problem.

}>Do you have the same standard for yourself?
}
}I think that my standards are more consistent than yours &
}I think that I take greater pains to openly disassociate myself
}from people whose values are radically different than my own.
}I have not, for instance, quoted Margaret Sanger because she
}believed in eugenics and was an elitist, & I do not buy that
}aspect of her theories.

You commend youself for not quoting someone you disagree with?
Who have I quoted that I should disagree with?

}
}>After all your burden should be lighter.  You need care only about the
}>"living", not the unborn.  We have to consider the unborn a subset of the
}>living.  All the areas you mention are important.  But if the unborn
}>are included in the "living" then they are equally important.
}
}Again, I disagree with the word "equally."

I am only stating the pro-life postion here: Equal righs for the unborn,
not null rights.

}>In a subsequent article to this one you make a plea for fraternal discussion
}>of this issue.  
}
}No, my husband did (I know it's confusing). He's a nicer person than I
}am, which is no doubt evidenced by the fact that he married me.

I still hope you value your husband's advice in this case.  You could
help the confusion by signing your articles.  In a response to T.C. Wheeler
you belittled him for being thus confused (or was that your husband?).

}>It's a very worthwile goal, but you need to help too.
}>Perhaps, from your own standpoint, you can see how hard this is.
}>It seems that you have used your experience with name calling, clinic
}>bombing "pro-lifers"
}
}And my knowledge of the spokespeople of the anti-abortion movement.

Who?  Name names so we can see how accurate your knowledge is.

}>to brow beat Liz in this case.  Fraternity requires
}>that we treat each other as individuals and not bring the "sins" of other
}>people on them.  

}Ms. Allen not only did not disassociate herself from the major
}spokespeople of the anti-abortion movement, she cited their
}propaganda uncritically. How was I to know that she was somehow
}different?
}However, if I was rude, I apologize.

Apologize to Liz; not me.  You have given no good excuse for not treating
her as an individual and concentrating on her opinion.  You expressed no
intrest in hearing it.  You didn't even say what was wrong with the
film, only launched some propaganda of your own.  That film was made
by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, (author of "Abortion America").  He came
over hard from the pro-choice camp.  He co-founded the National
Abortion Rights Action League and once operated the largest abortion
clinic in the world, in New York City.  I would think that what he
has to say about the abortion issue is worth considering.  If you
don't agree with the interpretation of the film say why it is wrong,
don't just blame Liz for believing in it as if she should know better
than to oppose your views.  Give her more credit for intelligence.
Give us all more credit.

}>It is hard to convey a civil tone in writing, especially
}>on issues like this.  I have been read as being angry when I thought
}>I was making an effort to sound reasonable.  Clearly I need more practice,
}>but I have learned to give others the benefit of my doubts.
}
}As I said before, Mr. Dubuc, you & Mr. Hummel have been, by far,
}the most thoughtful and civil respondents who were anti-abortionists,
}and my husband and I appreciate your time & effort.

With all due appreciation, I can't accept my part of this complement.
You place me above others who have responded critically to your views and
I can't accept that position.  I know Liz better than you and I consider
more thoughtful and civil than I.  I try to respond to what people actually
say in their articles and not impute to them beliefs that they have not
expressed.  I think Liz does that better than anyone.  Had you read anything
she had written *before* the article to  which you responded.  That wasn't
her first one, you know.

-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd