NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/bit/listserv/politics/22003

Text File | 1993-01-24 | 5.7 KB | 105 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!uvaarpa!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!UMKCVAX1.BITNET!CDELL
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:[e-mail]>
X-Envelope-to: [e-mail]
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 11:37:34 -0600
Sender:       Forum for the Discussion of Politics <[e-mail]>
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <[e-mail]>
Subject:      "On An Ongoing, and Fruitless, Discussion,
              and Further Remarks to..."
Lines: 87

"On An Ongoing, and Fruitless, Discussion, and Further Remarks to ..."

Dear Listfolk-

It is not so amusing to see the abortion discussion rear it's ugly
(yes, I said UGLY) self amongst us once again. It has been pointed
out by much more eminent listmembers than I on several occasions in
recent months that NO ONE is ever swayed by this ongoing idiotic
debate, everyone's position IS fixed on one side of the issue or the
other, so why do we have to debate this 25 days out of EVERY month
for the past two years?

I have a friend who is writing a book about political writing on the
net, and one thing he remarked to me that I believe is true -
(paraphrased) "It is almost impossible, looking at the logs of
POLITICS since 1990, to find a week where abortion was NOT
discussed." MY question remains, what's the point? I've seen no
dramatic conversions from one side to the other from any argument
ever offered in this forum, hence I conclude what we are getting is
windy rhetoric from one side or the other (which is why I rarely
write about the topic, only about those who continually badger us
about the topic). It seems to me that the "Christian right" ought to
understand that the pious pronouncements against abortion get real
old after awhile, and equally the liberals ought to understand that
even arguing marginally that they are not in favor of abortion, only
the right to have them, is not going to convince the right that
abortion isn't murder.

I think that it is more sad than despicable or disgusting that upon
the return of our would-be conservative "wit" that immediately a
round of labelling and name-calling begins. (Not excusing anyone, all
sides of the "discussion" appear to feed its ridiculousness). It
would seem that there are many issues of serious import that we could
be discussing besides the overworn issue of abortion - immediately,
given the Zoe Baird business, accessible child care at reasonable
cost, some kind of health care access for anyone, a partial
re-channelling of defense monies into infrastructure repair and new
construction, a serious effort to provide housing for all citizens, a
resolution of where are we (the country) headed on the education
front (though I do not relish a debate about the effacy of religious
education versus public education), a debate on whether we turn hard
right and create a police state to deal with drugs and crime or hard
center and legalize some drugs, clinically control others, and engage
in massive education about these issues (ditto on the issue of
contraception and AIDS) - these to me are only the tip of the iceberg
of what we COULD be discussing rather than beat the "dead horse" of
abortion, where evry mind is made up, and of which I contend most of
us are sick of hearimg the polemics about.

I realize that I have little credibility with our avowed rightists -
be they our young "friend" in Poland, our staunch defenders of the
cause Robert and Travis, or the newly returned "Missy President," Ms.
Stephenson (and I contend the "right" is much more inclined to
continue hammering us with their beliefs on THIS issue than is the
"left."). But, I WOULD suggest that though I am but one person in
this forum, I sense I speak for a vast majority (remember THAT
principle? "majority rules?") in requesting that all this abortion
rhetoric be engaged upon in private discussion rather than
bedevilling those who will not be converted by the speechifying, and
for whom, the whole continual debate is a waste of time, space and
bandwidth. More than once in the past 6 months, my mailer has been
filled by one or two "true believers" who arrogantly, and
inconsiderately, bombard me with twenty, thirty, to fifty messages in
a day about this issue, trying sheer force and weight of their
messages, to "beat us" into buying into their agenda. It won't
happen. This reader says, "I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ANY MORE ABOUT IT!"
I get enough about abortion from the news, and do not feel we need to
keep up this running debate here. All any of you do who insist on
continuing with it do is irritate the hell out of the rest of us!

Now through venting my spleen on this relatively pleasant Sunday
morning, and hoping that we can get on to a more productive
discussion, VMS

PS. I agree that my comments on "looking radar" versus "locking on"
radar in the Iraqi case were in partial error, and I concede that
"locking on" radar use by the Iraqi IS provocatory. However, I
believe that the US does NOT have a "mandate" to be Iraq's "keeper."
I also feel strongly that we destablize Iraq, as odius as that regime
is, at our peril, for what that action does is aid, abet and ensure
the strengthening of an equally deadly, if not more, "opponent,"
Iran (who has been arming steadily since 1988, buying subs, tanks and
planes from the ex-Soviets, and rumored to have bought some tactical
nukes from an unnamed "CIS" state). Does anyone think that Iran is a
more desirable power to hold sway in this area of the world, and more
importantly, what will the UN or the US do should Iran seek to spread
its "influence" by military force? V.