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