egs@epsilon.UUCP (Ed Sheppard) (03/11/85)
As promised, here's the summary of the "motivations poll." A summary of each response or followup I've seen that dealt with motivations on either/both sides is included. These are the authors' own words, although some responses were too long to quote whole. I've tried to capture essence of each response, and I hope nobody feels I've quoted out of context or misrepresented your position. Each summary is preceded by the camp the respondent belongs to (as near as I can make out, at least), so you can infer the group which is the subject of the note if it's not clear. pro-life response: The majority are honest in their convictions; but some make money off abortions, and are solely concerned about profits, and not about babies or couple's feelings. They are just ignorant about the facts surrounding fetal growth and development. pro-choice response: Most anti-abortionists are ideologically unable to mind their own business. While I can put up with their thinking they know the truth, I dislike their trying to legislate it to others. While they may be unconcerned about the mother/father/baby's well-being, so also are many pro-abortionists. pro-choice response: In general, I think most people however are sincere and just "misguided." However, in the anti-abortion camp, there are those who base their view on religion in full knowledge of a constitution that forbids laws based solely on religion. In the pro-abortion camp, there are those who call themselves pro-choice, but would force anti-abortionists to pay for abortions (which they think to be murder) through public funding of same. this isn't a great advocacy of choice in my opinion. pro-choice response: The tendency to get into other people's business seems to be endemic in most Christian sects, and so I conceive of pro-lifers as basing their arguments generally on religiously-inspired moral and ethical grounds, grounds which are not shared by many non-religious individuals. The religious group has, over the years, been continually in the forefront of movements to push for restrictions on individual liberty, to force their fellow citizens to conform to THEIR ideas of how people should behave. In my life-time, which has been quite long, I have seen blue laws, laws against dancing, laws against card- playing, laws against almost anything that any blue-nosed preacher could conceive of as offering an alternative to their church as the sole focus of activity in the community. The pro-life argument is just an extreme case of this, invading the most intimate personal life of a woman. We all hold convictions about our opinions, and consider them to be correct (If we thought that they weren't correct, we would change them!). But it takes a special breed of self-important, egocentric, even egomaniacal person to be so sure of his opinions that he proposes to force his interpretation of the truth on others, by force of law, if necessary. Among all of the rights that people have, the most important is the right to be left alone. And that is just what the pro-life groups will not permit. They intend to ram it down the throats of the reluctant, by force, if necessary. pro-choice response: I think that most persons on each side of the abortion issue are honest in their convictions, and most truly have deeply considered the aspects they consider germaine to the argument. However, on the Pro-life side, I think they are determined to shove their ideology/moral standards down other people's throats (which is what anti-abortion legislation would do) where as the Pro-choice side is willing to leave things up to the individual (which is what pro-abortion legislation would do). pro-choice response: As for why people would like to outlaw abortion I think they are probably well intentioned but their conviction is like a religious one, they think they are right and all the world should listen to them and do as they want. pro-choice response: I think there are some of each in the anti-choice camp. There are some who seem to honestly have different moral standards than I, standards which obligate a woman to carry to term. I disagree with these people, but I don't think they are bad or evil, although they may be trying to force others to obey their standards. On the other hand, though, there seem to be some (and these are the ones who seem to get the most media exposure, unfortunately) who are using this to line their own pockets and/or advance their political power, for instance, Jerry Falwell and Ronald Reagan. pro-life response: "no comment" That last was from a followup from Paul Dubuc. He feels that motivations have no bearing on the merits of either side of the abortion debate. I agree with him. BUT, perceived motivations have a great deal to do with the tone of the debate. So, enter soapbox mode. I've always been a big fan of the Mary Tyler Moore show. There was one episode in particular that's quite apropos to the general tone of net.abortion. In this show, Mary was dating a guy (Ken or Bob or something) who had a nine year old boy by a previous marriage. To put it bluntly, the kid was a brat (but then who isn't at that age, I sure was :-). After several unsuccessful (but amusing) attempts to make friends with him, Mary decides she doesn't like him a whole lot. Toward the end of the show, Ken invites Mary to the kid's surprise birthday party, comprised mostly of Ken's ex-wife's relatives. Ken, sensing the friction between Mary and his son, tries to draw out Mary's feelings. Mary tries to ignore his attempts until she finally admits (rather long-windedly) that at that point in their relationship, she just doesn't like the boy very much. One of the early arriving guests overhears Mary's remark and promptly blows it all out of proportion. To paraphrase one remark, "you don't like a nine-year old boy. I think that stinks." Just as all the guests turn against Mary, Ken puts his foot down saying that "no matter how wrong she is, she's my guest, and I expect her to be treated with respect and courtesy" (or a close approximation thereof). Naturally, everybody lives happily thereafter in the twin cities. I hope the moral is obvious. We don't have a "Ken" handy on the net to slap us into line. We have to police ourselves. So, let's cut out the inflammatory rhetoric folks. It's just not necessary. Attributing unworthy motivations to those you disagree with is bad manners pure and simple. It's especially painful for me to see people, who don't even know each other personally, calling names. Exit soapbox mode. Thanks for bearing with me folks, and thanks again to those who responded to my poll. Ed Sheppard Bellcore
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (03/15/85)
[.........] > In the pro-abortion camp, there are those who call themselves > pro-choice, but would force anti-abortionists to pay for > abortions (which they think to be murder) through public > funding of same. this isn't a great advocacy of choice in my > opinion. I can understand this one, but at the same token, I don't want to be forced to pay (thru taxes) the welfare checks of children who were born because the mother wanted an abortion but didn't have the money (or the contacts, or was afraid for her safety) because they were illegal. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd