Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxlm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!mag
From: mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A)
Newsgroups: net.abortion,net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: It is about time!
Message-ID: <650@whuxlm.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Jan-85 16:21:21 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxlm.650
Posted: Wed Jan 23 16:21:21 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Jan-85 19:02:29 EST
References: <946@ihuxn.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 55
Xref: watmath net.abortion:1088 net.women:4220 net.politics:7100

> 
> It is about time we do something!
> 
> It is apparent that the anti-abortionists have significantly increased
> their activities in recent months.  Their propaganda campaign is on
[ . . . ]
> we don't, it is our freedom that is threatened, not the anti-abortionists'.
> 
> Does anyone have any suggestions?
> -- 
> 
> Yosi Hoshen, Bell Laboratories
> Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho

I have one observation:  I attended a meeting at the Labs last year
sponsored by New Jersey NOW at which the president of that organization
was present.  She stated that the official NJNOW position was to support
Roe v. Wade, and that the organization wanted nothing more.  I made some
remarks about drawing arbitrary lines and observed that the pro-choice side
seemed to be weakened if they tried to defend that stance, since my feeling
was that the issue is not about human life, it's about women's control
of their bodies, and that Roe v. Wade really fails to address that issue.

What I discovered was that she and several other leaders present at the
meeting have almost no ideology.  Time and again, they reiterated a position
that boiled down to "We like Roe v. Wade, we want no more and no less,
and we wish to preserve it."  I suggested to them that the other side
had (what they believe to be) coherent ideologies, that these were
simple to attack, but that attack was necessary:  if they aren't
refuted publicly, the pro-choice side will lose support.

Despite the strong stances and polarization in this newsgroup, I run
across people ALL THE TIME who have NOT made up their minds about abortion
and who want to hear ethical and moral arguments.  Pro-choicers are
putting out their desires without a supporting ideology.

My suggestions:
Roe v. Wade was a good first step, and has incalculably improved the
freedom of women in our society.  It should be emphasized that it is
only a first step.  To use a military analogy, armies advance or retreat,
they don't stand still.  Let's advance rather than trying to defend
an untenable position.
(Anti-abortionists who are reading this, please spare me the flames
about what Roe v. Wade has done for the freedom of certain fetuses.
I've heard it all.)

Start putting out reasoned moral argument and refutations of anti-abortionist
positions instead of wasting time arguing with anti-abortionists.  Their
position is well-solidified.  It is usually religious in nature,
meaning that it is based on faith.  You can't argue with faith.

I have read several excellent papers on abortion ethics.  If there is
interest on the net, send me mail and I'll ask the author to post them.

Mike Gray, BTL, WH