ahn@pucc-i (evritt) (01/24/85)
[] The polarization of net.abortion bothers me. It feels like a reflection of the situtaion in the country as a whole. If we, an educated, rational group of adults, cannot carry on constructive dialogue on this difficult subject, free from name calling, and fingers in the ears diatribe, then how can we expect another group of adults to work out a way to prevent a nuclear holocost? It really is that serious. Perhaps a first step is to recognize the human anxieties that underlie the positions of both sides. For a woman, having a baby can be scary in itself. Add to that the possibility of becoming a single parent, with all of the associated burdens and headaches. Not having a child is an attractive alternative. For the other side there is a genuine concern about the decline of society and disregard for human life. They are really worried about what this will mean to their lives in the future. For both sides there is the fear that they someday will be the victim of "the other side" of this debate, subject to "their" arbitrary rule. As a start, let us call each other as we wish to be called. The sides in this debate are "pro-choice" and "pro-life." It may seem stupid, but it reflects the sense of courtesy that signals dialogue. There have been some positive signs. There was a proposal on the net to modify the time which a woman would have to get an abortion. How do the pro-life people feel about promoting contraception? Certainly there is middle ground to explore. Why are we not looking into positions that take into account the concerns of all involved? Let us reject solutions that impose our standard upon others without concern for their situtation and beliefs. Roy Evritt, Purdue University