regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (04/11/85)
>>=me, >=Matt >>Do we lock-up the criminals that unwanted, uncontrolled, unraised >>children become? Do we wait 18-20 years and kill them in the gas chamber >>then? > >Misconception or generalization. I don't believe unwanted --> uncontrolled >--> unraised correlates at all. The writer seems to infer that the 18 >million or so aborted babies since 1973 would have grown into criminals >whose acts would have lead them to the gas chamber. Is this rationality? Matt, you're just great. You flame people left and right for "lack of substantiation" or (in this case) "generalization", but feel free to use those ploys yourself. Where do you come by your belief that unwanted, uncontrolled and/or unraised don't correlate? I do infer that unwanted, uncontrolled and/or unraised children may become criminals. These are some common denominators in large percentages of criminals. Child abuse is another. I don't really feel that all 18 million aborted fetuses would become criminals, but I do feel that many would be unwanted and therefore potentially abused. If our society were such that it would willingly absorb all 18 million, and give them homes in healthy families, this factor in the argument would be less important. But our society has trouble right now with the thousands of children living in state homes waiting for families that won't materialize. How many is too many? I don't know. It isn't for the potential number of homeless children that I believe in choice. It is because I don't believe abortion is murder. >>IF your beliefs impel you to attempt to control actions of others, then >>you are equally responsible to consider ALL the actions dependent on your >>pivotal point (and I certainly haven't the imagination to list them all). >>"No abortion" treats a symptom, and treats it ineffectively. What to do? >Then the pro-choice people are responsible for all the effects created by >the legalization of abortion. Swiss cheese argument, sorry. Abortion is >easily recognized as both problem and symptom as most netters would agree >if they gave it two seconds thought. I agree that it treats a PROBLEM >ineffectively. You speak for "most netters", Matt? Or only for that small portion of "most netters" who _occasionally_ think? Seems to me (speaking for myself only) that the problem is an unwanted pregnancy and _one_ solution is abortion. I don't think it's a good solution, but then, I don't think jumping off tall buildings is a good solution, either. I think that education is a good solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy, and I see more of that coming from the pro-choice side than the pro-life side. QUICK, before you go off on an unrelated tangent, Matt, read carefully to discover that I DID NOT claim that ONLY pro-choice was doing something. I also said that I am calling this one as I see it, and I am more acquainted with the pro-choice camp. I don't think that the fact that pro-choicers should bear responsibility for their stance and that pro-lifers should bear responsiblity for theirs is swiss cheese. What do you mean by that? >>What is your "best possible world" scenario? Maybe we can bypass all the >>rhetoric. I personally don't know anybody who thinks abortion is a game, >>to be undertaken on a lark, "hey, everybody ought to go through it once." >>The camps seem to be divided between those who consider an unwanted >>pregancy a personal issue (I do) and those who consider it a social >>issue, open to the discussion and control of society at large. >I believe most people see it as both a personal issue and a social issue. >Pro-choicers and Pro-lifers see the woman's perspective and can relate. >The camps divide because pro-lifers see the infant's overriding rights >when it comes right down to it. Now you speak for "most people", Matt? What a busy person you must be. As I said, I see it as a personal issue though it has been dragged into the social arena. It's like what you want for dinner -- and the FDA's control over foodstuffs. Abortion isn't trivial, of course, but neither is cholera. Pro-lifer's _assume_ the fetus has overriding rights. Pro- choicer's maintain that the woman has first right to herself. _Women_ see the woman's perspective which is why in my original posting I suggested that women should decide the issue. There certainly isn't a lack of pro-lifer's or pro-choicer's among women. If the balance of belief is different than the population at large, you should give that some thought. But I would be content to let the women -- the people who really have to make the personal decision -- decide. What do you fear?
johnston@spp1.UUCP (Micheal L. Johnston) (04/18/85)
> > _Women_ see the woman's perspective which is why in my original posting I > suggested that women should decide the issue. There certainly isn't a lack > of pro-lifer's or pro-choicer's among women. If the balance of belief is > different than the population at large, you should give that some thought. > But I would be content to let the women -- the people who really have to > make the personal decision -- decide. What do you fear? I'm not the poster you're responding to, but I'll tell you what I fear. I fear an injustice similiar to what took place in 1973 when a handful of people decided on this issue. Not only were these people not women but, I assume by their ages, not likely to be involved in creating a pregnancy. They were also not medical experts but decided upon an issue dealing with life and subsequently a decision costly to millions. What you are suggesting is that those who have the ultimate choice decide whether that choice is legal or not. I'd like to draw an analogy and since sexism is the topic this ought to fit in. Since men usually have the ultimate choice in whether to rape a woman or not, should we let men decide the issue on the legality of rape? I'm sure you feel that the potential victims of rape (in most cases, women) should have a say. Perhaps you don't see a victim in the case of abortion. Some pro-choicers don't. Mike Johnston