Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site denelcor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!denelcor!neal
From: neal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Open letter to pro-lifers, round 2
Message-ID: <372@denelcor.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Mar-84 17:25:38 EST
Article-I.D.: denelcor.372
Posted: Sun Mar 25 17:25:38 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 26-Mar-84 21:20:06 EST
References: <320@bunkerb.UUCP>
Organization: Denelcor, Aurora, CO
Lines: 51

**************************************************************************

>Incidentally, I use the terms 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice'
>reluctantly; does anyone have a better idea?

I rather like those terms.  They seem to represent each group's view
of themselves.  Neither side agrees with the name the other has picked
for itself but at least each seems relatively satisfied with its own.

>Now the human race has a problem: a general disregard for the value
>of life, even human life.  This problem results in everything from
>driving dangerously to occassional attempts to conquer the world.
>Present company excepted, there seems to be difficulty in convincing
>humanity that it even has a problem, never mind that it needs help.

I suppose that this will classify me as one of the ones that you need to
convince but I would like to point out that our current society has a
much higher regard for life, human and otherwise, than nearly any other
in history.  It seems axiomatic that animal life at least can only exist
by consuming other living or once-living things--usually at the expense
of the thing being consumed.  There are a few exceptions of course: milk,
eggs (provided you're sure they're unfertilized), fruit (provided you
plant the seeds and somehow make up the energy source that the seeds were
counting on that you consumed instead).

I sometimes wonder if our high regard for life isn't in fact a cause of
some of the other problems we experience--overpopulation to name one.
This is an idea I am still working on and I don't even understand all of
the questions much less do I have any great insight into the answers.
Still, how much life can one small planet support?

>So, let us proclaim the value of life.  But if we proclaim the
>value of life, we must practice what we proclaim, and try to
>prevent the unnecessary destruction of life.  Now, I find it
>difficult to believe that most abortions are matters of necessity.
>Am I wrong?

That depends on your standards of "necessary".  How bad do the
consequences have to be for the pregnancy to continue before you will
grant the abortion was necessary?  Does it actually have to threaten
the mother's life?  How about her health?  Mental health?  General
well-being?

>Yes, actually.  Am I also making any sense?

Actually I was impressed by the reasonable tone of what you had to say.

			Regards,
				Neal Weidenhofer
				Denelcor, Inc.
				<hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal