pdobeda@watnot.UUCP (pdobeda) (01/16/86)
Comments have been made recently regarding the difficulty of the decision
to kill an unborn child or to let it face the same trials and tribulations of
its parents. And I would not detract from the weight of such a decision.
However, the prevalent attitude among "pro-choice" factions seems to be that
the decision must be made by the girl (except in some cases (read as you will)
where another person's decision may override the girl's wishes). No support
is forthcoming from these "pro-choice" people should she decide to keep her kid.
Instead, what we do hear is a lot of rhetoric about how awful such a decision
would be. This isn't a choice at all.
Yet it is claimed that Pro-Life groups advocate the removal of a choice. But
how can this be? If the child is given up for adoption, then the effect on
a girl's life might be to delay her plans by up to a year (My gawd, a year is
so long--but wait, why haven't I heard any "1984" jokes for so long???).
Surely most people acknowledge that a year's difference in getting a job,
or completing schooling is negligible in most cases. And in the interim,
there must surely be enough people around to offer her support, since
*everyone* supports the choice *she* made--to save two lives. And in just
how many of the cases where 'a baby will just ruin my life now' was not
the life headed on a downward inclination already? Will not having this child
bring her around to the counselling services that can help keep her life
moving forward, while saving her child's life (should she make the decision
to not have an abortion)??
Can't we work together on THIS part now, saving lives, huh, please? We can
still fight later about the issue of killing any of the unborn.
Which brings me to my next argument. Those who so wish, read no further.
What follows is disjoint from what has proceeded. Buried within it is my
response to the no-religious-precepts challenge.
You see, I have this problem. I live in the downtown area of a medium-sized
city. It ain't a castle by anyone's standards--never was. The problem is,
there's these drunks that keep going by the front of the place--real bad.
My guests don't exactly like it, either, when they come an' find that one
of 'em's gotten sick all over my front lawn again. It's a bother. But what
can I do? I can't afford to move to anywheres else. These drunks didn't
always used to be here, they've just moved over here because it's easier for
them or somethin. I don't know. What I do know is that I got my rights!
These people can't come here and deprive me of my standard of living! I had
a chance to be somebody before, and now these people are threatening to ruin
my whole life. They're not even people, really. And those that are gettin
money from the government are a drain on society. People like me are
buyin the booze that's being spilled all over my lawn--just how much are
these guys costing me?? Well, I'm gonna get rid of 'em. Most of 'em are
all fried upstairs from drugs, anyways. I'll be doing everybody a big favor
by getting rid of these unwanted, unloved people. Sure, some of them just
need somebody to care for them and they'll try their darndest to come away
from their problems--I've even seen it done. But, hey, it'll be easier this
way--NOT that it'll be easy. This is gonna hurt me a lot. But it'll be
better than letting my life be dragged downhill, right? (rationalize on...
it's easy to rationalize almost any act that makes things more convenient
for onesself.)
Well, the drunks are gone now. And I even won the court case where some
self-righteous slobs were trying to force their morality down my throat.
Let THEM live with a bunch of drunks up and down the street all day, see
how they feel then! Seems strange, though. The old place isn't a castle
anymore, like it used to be. Life seems a bit emptier without having to
face the realities of having to cope with other people, even people I didn't
like. It's even boring sometimes, without having Harry around anymore. Not
that he didn't have it coming to him, the lousy ...... And I don't just say
that because I found out it was him messin up the front lawn most of the time,
either. And yeah, maybe I could've done something for Harry, but these things
take time. And I got a lot of other things to do. Besides, how could I have
lived with myself knowing he was living somewheres else, maybe not getting
any decent food, or being abused (the world is so, so cruel). I knew just how
much trouble dogs were to start with, but once I saw Harry, all that became
secondary. He was a lot of fun--all I seem to remember is good times, and I
can even laugh at the times when he upset me so. I guess I'd just got fed up.
For those who like things a bit better summed up, if you start with no
"Moral Law" (be it The Ten Commandments, or "The Primary Good", or what have
you), you will go almost nowhere fast. Any arguments will appeal to your
senses of right, based either in selflessness or selfishness.
My favorite is the first. What's yours?
Awaiting constructive replies,
Paul D. Obeda
** not being employed makes it difficult
** for the expressed opinions
** to belong to my employer