pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/12/84)
}> Paul Dubuc: }>The abortion victim is invisible. You won't see a picture of him or }>her on the evening news or in Newsweek (bullet riddled bodies in Beirut }>are a different matter). }> Does it bother you? It bothers me... at least as much as bullet }>riddled bodies in Beirut. It seems that most people, including the press, }>don't consider showing the victims of murder and war to be an abuse of }>emotional technique (an offence that I'm sure to be accused of here). }>The public has "a right to know" and not be sheltered from the grim }>realities in the world. Such scenes, it can be argued, rightly arouse }>our indignation for war and human slaughter. } }Tom Sevener: }We also don't see pictures of the carnage that would be caused by }a nuclear war. I've seen plenty of pictures and films of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (sp?). They showed them in high school. I think if nuclear wars happened as often as abortions (i.e. taking as many lives) we would see plenty of pictures. }...Does the destruction of all life on this planet bother }you as much as the destruction of fetuses in the womb? Yes. But in different ways. The former is in danger of happening and no one is intentionally trying to accomplish that end (both sides differ on how it might be avoided). The latter is already happening to the tune of over a million lives per year. And not only that, but it's perfectly legal. }Which really has a higher priority? They have equal priority. }I am shocked when the Archbishop of New York puts overwhelming priority }on the abortion issue when we find ourselves now 12 minutes away from }nuclear war, when we were a half an hour away from nuclear war before }Ronald Reagan took office. Reagan has every intention of continuing }his unprecedented arms race--the latest announcement from the Reagan }administration in response to Mondale's plan to try to slow down }the movement of our country into an armed camp was that they would keep }buying every destructive weapons systems they could--whether it bankrupts }us or not! I'm not sure I can accept your interpretation of the adminstration's actions or intent at face value. I find it hard to adopt a definite solution on this issue. I wish all of us could trash our nuclear weapons A.S.A.P. But it seems that Reagan needs to be convinced that the Russians are really peace loving and would normally be content to live in a world with capitalism and democracy. Some seem to view the U.S.S.R. as a rattlesnake. Being nice to them won't appease them. Dropping our weapons won't make it refrain from biting. Some don't see much reason to trust the communists (at least not as much as our own government). On the other hand your concern is legitimate. The minute amount of time involved from pushing the button to it being all over leaves no time for second thoughts. }What difference will protection of the fetuses right to life }make if ALL of our lives are put in jeopardy by the current arms race? Maybe none. With nuclear war we see our own destruction as well as every one else's. No matter how much the deaths of all the *other* people as a result of nuclear war are emphasized, I think the strong concern over that issue stems from the fact that we wish our own lives to be spared. You or I or anyone we are aquainted with, will never die as the result of an abortion. I think the only thing that makes the arms race issue of more concern is that we ourselves will almost definitely suffer as the victims in the event of a nuclear war. I see it as a more self-centered concern than being against abortion. I see these two human life issues as equally important, not one as being more so than the other. I am not generally concerned more for my own life than human life in general. And I don't see it as necessarily being a choice between saving the unborn or saving me. }I am a vegetarian, and I am very sensitive to the issue of protection of }ALL life, not just fetuses, Why do you draw the line at vegetable life? }...including those threatened by nuclear holocaust, }criminals killed by the State, whales killed by fishermen with no good }cause. If you are truly concerned about the right to life, then which }has priority? Protecting the lives of every single human being on this }planet or simply unborn fetuses? }How about all those who are born in the Third World--only to die of starvation? }I think it is time that those who say they support humans right to life }ask themselves these questions. }And consider where your priorities should really be. } I wonder how you can really justify holding the pro-life movement hostage to all the human life problems in the world. It is as if you are saying that, in order to be rightfully pro-life, I must be equally active in solving all these other problems. Your priorities are clear. You put the arms race issue on top. Without that (and your proposed solution to it--more or less aligned with the Democrats), you see no point in being concerned about the others. One could turn your argument around and ask why Mondale isn't as concerned about fetal human life as he is about the subset of born humans which, incidently, includes himself? But I don't begrudge you your priorities. They are fine. I'm glad that people are concerned about solving these other problems, because everyone can't be equally involved in, or informed of, them all. But you seem to be implying that my priorites should match yours, else I have no right to be concerned over abortion. I'm sorry. I just can't agree. We are all working on different facets of one big problem, the way I see it. We can't all work on all facets of the problem at the same time. -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd The true light that enlightens every one was coming into the world... (John 1:9)