Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Mikki Barry is a Pro-Lifer
Message-ID: <479@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Mar-85 15:47:02 EST
Article-I.D.: cadovax.479
Posted: Wed Mar 20 15:47:02 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Mar-85 03:33:27 EST
References: <235@dscvax2.UUCP>
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 130

[............]
>>First, the term 'pro-abortionist' is incorrect.  Pro-choice people particularly
>>use the term pro-choice because that's what they mean.  Abortion is not
>>particularly a PREFERRED option, but it is viewed as an EXISTING OPTION.

>To be pro-choice in today's world is to be pro-abortion.  Analogy?  If the
>issue were black slavery, would you consider the pro-choice (let the
>slave-owner decide) viewpoint as anything but pro-slavery.  To be silent
>about such a critical issue is to accept it - even if one does not practice
>it.  One cannot run on the grass while "sitting on the fence".

I stand by my original statement.  I would prefer 'NOT anti-abortion' if
you like, as it dosen't mean the same thing.  I still feel pro-abortion implies
that abortion is preferred over other options.

>>Second, I would not assume that the pro-choice community has not extended
>>itself to care as you indicate, and further would ask:
>>
>>     1.  What has the pro-life community done to counsel women BEFORE
>>	  pregnancy in attempts to minimize situations where abortion
>>	  could be considered as an option?
>>
>>     2.  What is the attitude of pro-lifers about pre-teen and teenage
>>	  birth control and sex education in a similar attempt to minimize
>> 	  such situations where abortion is considered?
>>

>Give me an example of the way the pro-choice community has done anything -
>under the banner of pro-choice - to help unwed mothers.  In my own city
>of Santa Barbara, the SB Pregnancy Counseling Center helps women in 
>distress.  On February 14, 1985 "Tender Life" in Ventura, CA incorporated
>to establish free pregnancy testing, a hotline, counseling, per-natal and
>childcare classes, job training ( for poor unwed mothers, not all are)
>and single parent counseling.  In addition, real estate is being set aside
>to establish a home to house young women turned out of their homes because
>of their pregnancies.  Why don't you send a check to Tender Life, PO BOX
>7610, Oxnard, CA 93-31 or call Leah Coulter at (805)-983-4231?  If you
>really mean well, this is an excellent chance to help someone.

That's it, let's change the subject.  All the responses you gave me indicate
things done for 'pregnant' women.  What about efforts to educate women
before they're pregnant and in trouble?  Your response would indicate
that you know of nothing.  A woman considering an abortion gets plenty
of counseling before the abortion is performed.  And, there should be
groups working on education on sex and contracetption (not necessarily
pro-choice driven).  Show me one of these, and I'll contribute.

>>>                      ..... You are naive to think that pro-lifers will
>>>work together with pro-choicers to provide every alternative to abortion.
>>>Each has their selfish interest to protect ($ for pro-choicers, LIFE for
>>>pro-lifers) and will not work with the other.
>>
>>I certainly wouldn't expect any collaborations with idiots like this involved.
>>This one hardly warrants any response.  Fortunately, I don't expect most
>>pro-lifers feel this way.  If they do, then any lack of inclination to
>>work together is in the pro-life camp, not the pro-choice. ( I'm pro-choice,
>>when do I get my money? :-) )

>I'm glad you think I'm an idiot because name-calling is a sign that you're
>running out of rational responses. 

As if such an attitude of unwillingness to work together to resolve
differences deserves rational responses.

>Since one of the arguments used by the pro-choicers is that many births
>would lead to a greater welfare roll, then you stand on the side of your
>pocketbook.  Not every prchoicer is making big money 
>from abortions - only people who work the clinics, etc.  Some of you 
>foolishly defend abortionists while your rights are escaping you, e.g.
>currently a husband whose wife has an abortion has no say in the decision.
>I, for one, want my rights returned.  I also want to see the next generation
>of adults brought up in a world where life is sacred; the aged, the pre-born,
>the mentally retarded, the handicapped, etc.  Man should not have the power
>over life that he now commands.  Making abortion illegal is a step back to
>sanity.  Since abortion was made legal, child abuse in this country has more
>than doubled - is this respect for life?

I don't expect the people who work the clinics are motivated by big bucks
but rather are motivated by interest in helping unwed mothers etc.. However,
someone closer to the clinics themselves would have to answer the question
'why do you do it' better than I.  As far as husbands rights, that may be
a different issue, many women desiring abortions want one because their
husband exercized his right to 'split' and left them high and dry.

>Cocaine is illegal and people die terrible deaths in the course of selling
>and distributing it.  Would you then propose to make cocaine legal?  Do you
>think it would be a wise decision?  Give me the scenario (legal, moral, etc.)
>in which drugs such as cocaine would be acceptable to you?

The very fact that cocaine is a big business is testament to the fact
that illegality has little effect on whether people use it or not.
(Illegal != socially unacceptable).  Personally, I would advocate
the legalization of cocaine, not because I think that cocaine is a
good thing, but because I object to MEGABUCK$ (there's that financial
motivation again) being siphoned out of the U.S. with no control, taxation,
etc.  I would however, wish to stipulate that legalization of cocaine
is accompanied by a campaign designed to present it as socially UNACCEPTABLE,
as I feel this is the only way to reduce its usage.  Do you really think
that because it suddenly becomes legal that everyone in the country would
go out and use it?   Are ALL the unwanted children aborted since abortion
was legalized 12 years ago? Is it only because of the pro-life campaigns? (NO!)
The days are long gone (if they were ever here) where
social acceptance = legality. 
I feel laws designed to make things like cocaine illegal, are supporting
these illegal activites by providing a black-marketplace that is
very condusive to the making of big money.  If it was a small business
that the government could effectively control, then that's one thing.
Social behavior that is deemed acceptable by a large segment of the population
however, clearly are not effectively handled by laws and government 
agencies (and beefing up the agencies in order to fight such WARs is
not the answer).  Morality has nothing to do with it, as I am not arrogant
enough to feel I must impose my personal moral convictions on other people
as long as they don't interfere with mine.  And lets please not go through
all of the sensationalist comparisons, as this particular philosophy only
extends to illegal acts that large portions of the populace pratice, and 
are ones that only affect an individuals immediate circle or family.

>Tell me what is wrong with adoption.

Not a thing.  It is ONE ANSWER.

>Why is the incidence of child abuse higher in families where the child
>	was born in a WANTED pregnancy?

This is interesting, tell me more.

>Matt Noah

Keith Doyle