esk@wucs.UUCP (Eric Kaylor) (10/10/84)
[] Pro-choicers are fond of accusing the opposition of dogmatic certainty; unwillingness to LISTEN to the other side. Alas, the shoe fits at least as well on the other foot. > Regardless as to whether or not you think abortion is MORALLY wrong, > isn't it obvious that even with very strict laws SOME people will get > abortions anyway? Wouldn't it be better to have SAFE (to the mother) > above ground abortion clinics rather then foster yet ANOTHER underground > ILLEGAL activity? I think there is enough self indulgent GUILT in this > world without catering to countless finger pointers championing some > cause that as far as I am concerned is none of their business. > Keith Doyle {ucbvax,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd Indeed, some people will ignore any law. But, equally obvious, less people will do it if it's illegal (my estimate: order of magnitude of 50% less). Indeed, it would definitely be better to have safety to the women in cases where it's going to be done anyway. (Some anti-abortionists might say they deserve the unsafety involved, but that's just mean-spiritedness in my view. I can't fathom punishment for punishment's sake.) But I think you need to make more of an effort to understand the opposition's point of view. If you really believed that there was unjustified killing of human beings involved here, you would view the risks to women's health involved as a necessary evil, to be alleviated at all costs *except* at the cost of needless loss of lives. Try to put yourself in the shoes of the "pro-lifer". This will stop you from making what are doomed to be unconvincing arguments (that is, arguments that convince only the already converted). The point is not ill-taken: many anti-abortionists ARE insensitive to the problems their agenda would create. But at least as many are sensitive to these concerns, but simply view them as tragic necessities. Their view may be consistently wrong, but it is definitely consistent. It is unfair, too, to paint all "pro-lifers" with the same brush, or to attack their motives and ignore their arguments. If there were more attempts at understanding from both sides, there would be a lot less hostility in the air. And the volume of this newsgroup would probably drop drastically. Many have expressed amazement at the extreme scarcity of people who are convinced to change their minds (usually, they are talking about people on the OTHER side not changing their minds! :-) ). What amazes me is that anyone ever IS convinced: the quality of the argu- ments definitely does not merit it, because no attempt at understanding is made. I could go on, but I fear I have already exceeded the quota of reasonableness allowed on the net. --Writing from NEITHER major side (surprise!) the once and future (but not now) iconoclast, Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's. Thanks.