jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (01/22/85)
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 the rise and so is their effort to intimidate women who choose abortion. They are likely to intensify their efforts at the judicial and legislative level. It is quiet clear that if those of us who oppose the attempts to control women's bodies by big government do not act, women will once again become second class citizens. Remember, slaves cannot control their bodies! The anti-abortionists are trying to impose their moral and religious code on those who subscribe to a different moral stance. Making abortion illegal could be the first step in losing our personal freedom. Remember, these folks have a lot more "moral virtues" ready to shove down our throats. Those of us who support women's right to choose should be more active in counteracting the anti-abortionist propaganda, intimidation, and legislative efforts. The anti-abortionists seem to be dedicated and fanatic in their cause, but so is Khomeini and his gang. (Khomeini also knows what good for everyone. He is absolutely convinced that he is right, and, therefore he is very dedicated for his cause). I am convinced that it is possible to fight fanaticism. If 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
mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (01/24/85)
> > 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
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/24/85)
> Does anyone have any suggestions?
I do. I share your concern, BUT - *please*, everyone who follows up,
*delete* net.women from the newsgroup list. Net.abortion was created
specifically to get abortion discussions off of net.women (and perhaps
net.politics too), not because of any conspiracies, but because to a
large number of people, they seemed to generate for more heat than light.
Yes, it's a political issue, yes, it's a women's issue - yes, discuss it
on net.abortion.
Thank you.
Jeff Winslowmgv@duke.UUCP (Marco G. Valtorta) (01/27/85)
I disagree with the statement that abortion is a "woman's right." The right to life is just as much a woman's right as a man's right. Also, shouldn't notes about abortion be left out of net.women, and kept in net.abortion? Marco Valtorta
asz@snow.UUCP (Jerry Cornelius) (01/31/85)
Surely any law that imposes anything on anyone is making them a slave. -- "Anarchy is the only sensible alternative; don't vote, you know it makes sense" ... mcvax!ukc!qtlon!flame!ubu!snow!asz