NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/censorsh/8844

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!bsu-cs!joemays
From: [e-mail] (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Restrictions about pro-life meetings
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:19:57 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN
Lines: 70

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas Bridge) writes:

>I am shocked, amazed, horrified at the hypocrisy of certain elements of the
>Pro-Choice movement in Trinity College, Dublin.

>For those of you not in the know, Ireland has been in the middle of an abortion
>contraversy since January for various complicated reasons which I will not go
>into here.

Might it have something to do with the fact that restricting a woman's
right to choose is wrong?

>As a consequence, we are going ot have a referendum on November 26th to decide
>wether to change

>1.  The rules on abortion (should we maintain the status-quo, introduce limited
>abortion, or ban it all together (that will take another referundum as its not
>an option this time round)).

>2.  The right of women to travel abroad because under the law the courts can
>restrict this if they think the woman may have an abortion while abroad.

Now this is fascinating.  I have often argued that if Roe vs. Wade is
reversed that it is going to give the government the right to control
a woman's body in a number of heinous ways.  Pro-life advocates here
in the states scoff at this.  Evidently in Ireland it has already
happened.  Let me see if I understand your remark correctly.  If a
woman is pregnant she may not be allowed to leave the country because
she might get an abortion?  This is just one example of how becoming
pregnant cedes control of her body to the state.  Do you think this
is RIGHT?!?

>3.  The right to supply abortion referral in Ireland (currently not available)

>Of course, the pro-choice section in Trinity want proposal three accepted
>on thegrounds that it restricts the "Freedom of Information".

I imagine they want all the proposals accepted.  They are probably using
Freedom of Information as a means of doing it because it is the only
method open to them.  They may not actually be such anti-censorship
advocates themselves.

>One of the pro-life supporting groups in the college spent last Monday morning
>putting up posters advertising a meeting of the group about abortion.  A group
>or individual (presumably pro-choice) spent Monday afternoon tearing them down
>again.  It can be argued that restricting abortion information is a form of
>censorship.  But surely, under the same logic, the tearing down of pro-life
>posters is censorship, and therefore equally as much a denial of one's right
>to have complete Freedom of information.

>Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

If in fact they are anti-censorship then yes, what they have done is
hypocritical.  As an anti-censorship person myself, I think what they
have done is wrong.  I also think that proposal 3 should be accepted,
if only on an anti-censorship basis.  (On a pro-choice basis, all
three proposals are merely a start to what should be done.)

I'd be careful with the charge of hypocrisy, though.  Are you for
proposal 3?  If not, then posting this complaint with their actions
is an act of hypocrisy on your part.

Whether or not they are hypocrites depends on whether or not they
actually support the Freedom of Information Act in and of itself,
or whether they are simply using it as a tool to remove a restriction
that is wrong for other reasons as well.

Joe