NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/abortion/54345

Text File | 1993-01-06 | 6.0 KB | 132 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!bogus.sura.net!darwin.sura.net!cos!cos!bob1
From: [e-mail] (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Can't we all just get along?
Message-ID: <bob1.726340023@cos>
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:07:03 GMT
Lines: 120

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

>[e-mail] (Brian Kendig) writes:

[some deletia]

>>I encourage considerate discussion with pro-lifers.  I don't like it
>>when people assume some morally superior attitude, though.  You seem
>>reasonable, Patrick; I look forward to debating with you.  :)

>I think the problem here, Mr. Kendig, is that morals, by nature, require
>one to believe that those who do not follow those morals are inherently
>inferior to some extent.  In other words, we live by a certain set of
>morals.  When we see others violating those morals, it is quite
>natural to assume the mantle of superiority.

But why should the rest of the world accept what you call 'your
morals', and what I would call 'your beliefs'? You believe that
abortion is murder and if that is your belief, fine. I don't
believe that abortion is murder, and currently the law of the
land agrees with me. I don't consider it to be as desirable as
foolproof birth control, but it seems that no one wants to do
the necessary research.

However, the single factor that distinguishes the two positions in
this group is that we (on the pro-choice side) have no desire what
so ever to force abortion upon women who do not want it. The other
side, regardless of how honestly they believe, does want to deny
abortion to all women who may want it. It surely does not take a
great leap of logic to see where this leads. By the year 2005 we
would all be Baptists (or whoever has the biggest vote count) or
we would be deported.

>I consider myself morally superior to John Wayne Gacy (murderer) and
>John F. Kennedy (adulterer).  Though there is no way to compare
>these two, you can see that both stand for something which I find
>morally reprehensible.

Well, my reaction sometimes is 'There, but for the grace of god, go I'.
I like to believe I am incapable of murder, but who knows what certain
provocations might do? As for adultry, hey with the delightful lady
who shares my life it would be sheer stupidity - why go elsewhere
when you know you have the best.

>Regarding my posts on these matters.  True, I am often a bit barbed with
>my comments.  This was purely reactionary on my part to the treatment
>I received here when I first posted.  After posting a simple story,
>I was lambasted by the likes of Susan as a "bozo".  I do not feel

I don't recall your first post, but be aware that there are a few
veterans here who have endured many a raw newbie, so touchiness is
to be expected.

>therefore that my terse statements are in any way unwarranted here.

>I do understand that a large number of pro-choice people in the general
>population have made that decision based on a concern for their fellow
>man (or woman in this case).  I do not think that stating this in
>every single post will in any way change the import of the rest of
>my ideas.

>Why is my repeating "abortion is murder" any more stupid than those
>who keep saying "abortion is not murder", or those who keep saying
>"stop oppressing women by taking away their reproductive rights", etc.?

Well, I won't say that it is stupid, but it certainly comes under the
heading of 101 ways to waste your time.


>Is it any more unreasonable of me to expect that pro-choicers understand
>that I really do care about the unborn than for them to expect that I
>understand their concern for women?  I have not met a single pro-lifer
>motivated by anything but a respect for life.  To be quite honest,
>I have not found such a homogenous idealogy in the pro-choice people I have
>met.

>I do try to respond to reasonable pro-choice commentary.  Unfortunately,
>time constraints and frustration sometimes get the best of me.  Answering
>the same questions endlessly, however, is somewhat tiresome. "Would you
>put all women to death who have abortions?" "fetuses are not legal persons"
>and all those things I have written on already that keep being thrown
>at me.

>You might be surprised how many pro-choice beliefs I share.  Has abortion
>been used to oppress women? Yes.  Could it be used that way in the future?
>Yes.  Can pregnancy be a terrible burden and a life-changing trauma? Yes.
>Many pro-lifers agree about the existance of these problems, and would
>like to find a way to rectify them.  We just don't feel that killing
>an innocent human being is the way to do this.

But that's the point, there is no other universaly acceptable way. Forcing
the birth of disabled, retarded, unwanted children is not an acceptable
answer. Before I get flamed, I have disabilities so please don't give me
all that bushwa about how people overcome their handicaps. Mine are
trivial, but I've paid my dues. And if someone can accurately determine
the severity of retardation prior to birth, there might be some level
at which the parents could decide go/nogo. I was lucky in that even
though my Mother was not supposed to have more children, I never had
any doubts about my parents love. But, I have seen far, far too many
children who were/are not wanted. This is not life, it is mere
existence. And that has only touched the surface of why there simply
is no other alternative.

>I know that I would be personally overjoyed if 100% reliable birth
>control became available that was cheap and safe.  This would mean that
>abortions would become totally undesirable.

>I apologize sincerely if you feel any of my remarks were too sharp.

Don't sweat it son, you haven't damaged me in any way that I'm aware of.

>>--
>>_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun


>Edward Simmonds


REB