NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31 / NN_1992_31.iso / spool / talk / abortion / 53612 < prev next >

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 26.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!crdgw1!rdsunx.crd.ge.com!pan!keegan From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) Newsgroups: talk.abortion Subject: t.a. FAQ (part 1 of three) Message-ID: <1992Dec30.233145.21735@crd.ge.com> Date: 30 Dec 92 23:31:45 GMT Sender: usenet@crd.ge.com (Required for NNTP) Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com Organization: "T.S.A.K.C" Lines: 630 Nntp-Posting-Host: pan.crd.ge.com this hasn't been posted since july 1992. given some recent discussions, i thought i'd repost it. From rdsunx.crd.ge.com!crdgw1!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu u!caen!nic.umass.edu!nic.umass.edu!ejones Sun Jun 14 20:41:35 EDT 1992 Article: 10304 of talk.abortion Xref: rdsunx.crd.ge.com talk.abortion:10304 news.answers:835 Path: rdsunx.crd.ge.com!crdgw1!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu u!caen!nic.umass.edu!nic.umass.edu!ejones From: ejones@umassmed.ummed.edu Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.answers Subject: talk.abortion FAQ 1/3 [Q & A] Message-ID: <EJONES.92Jun12112902@umassmed.ummed.edu> Date: 12 Jun 92 16:29:02 GMT Expires: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 00:00:00 GMT Sender: usenet@nic.umass.edu (USENET News System) Reply-To: ejones@umassmed.ummed.edu Followup-To: poster Nntp-Posting-Host: umassmed.ummed.edu Content-Length: 25528 X-Lines: 606 Status: RO Archive-name: abortion/part1 Last-modified: June 13, 1992 *(Note: Diff markers (*) have been added to make scanning this document *much easier for those who have seen it before.) In an attempt to make a fair FAQ for this group, I've come up with the following document. I hope you'll find the FAQ fair and impartial, without any references to actions on one side that don't include a similar action on the other side. This FAQ is updated every month, and I continue to read any and all comments sent to me. Make your comments to me as specific as possible, even to the point of writing whole paragraphs tha you would like to see in there. I would like to make this FAQ a true group FAQ, with contributions from as many people as possible. Please note this is the first of three documents. The second document is a list of relevant texts and information that people often ask for on talk.abortion. The third document contains relevant Supreme Court decisions. All three of these will always be posted at the same time, on the first and fifteenth of each month. In addition, the FAQ is by no means an attempt by me or anyone else to restrict or censor the posts of other people. This first document is only meant to be helpful, not 1984-ish. Also, a word of caution: This is *not* an official FAQ. There is no such thing as an official FAQ for a talk.* group. Many of the things contained in the first of the three documents are opinion only - not necessarily my opinion, but opinion nonetheless. Please do not use this FAQ as official doctrine. Use it only as the helpful guide it is meant to be. Thank you to everyone who helped create this FAQ. I sincerely appreciate the time and effort that you all put in on it. Erik Jones ejones@umassmed.ummed.edu ***************************************************************************** FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON TALK.ABORTION DOCUMENT ONE (OF THREE): QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TABLE OF CONTENTS ----------------- I. WHAT IS TALK.ABORTION? II. WHAT GROUPS ARE REPRESENTED ON TALK.ABORTION? III. WHAT IS THE SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO? IV. WHAT IF I HAVE A DISAGREEMENT WITH THE NAMES OF SOME OF THE GROUPS? V. ARE ALL PRO-[LIFERS/CHOICERS] ...? VI. IS THERE A LOT OF FLAMING? VII. HOW SHOULD I INTRODUCE MYSELF? VIII. IF I DON'T WANT TO POST PUBLICLY, IS IT OK TO RESPOND BY PRIVATE E-MAIL? IX. WHAT IF I HAVE SOME STATISTICS I WANT TO POST? X. MAY I USE TALK.ABORTION TO ANNOUNCE MARCHES AND RALLIES? XI. WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN SOMEONE WRITES...? XII. WHAT ARE SOME OF THE COMMON DISCUSSION THREADS? ------------------------- I. WHAT IS TALK.ABORTION? talk.abortion is an unmoderated newsgroup where people discuss abortion. All facets of abortion are discussed: Is abortion moral or immoral? What are the current laws and court cases in the country? When does a foetus become a person? Does a foetus have a soul? The conversation also tends to stray into other related topics, such as the rights of the father if a woman wants or does not want an abortion, the morality of certain types of birth con- trol, the process by which certain religious groups have come to their stance on abortion, the rightness or wrongness of the tactics of such groups as the National Right-to-Life Committee, NARAL, etc. Rights of the father tends to be more a discussion of alt.abortion.inequity, but it certainly does arise here at times. There are no limits placed on what may be discussed, since talk.abortion is an unmoderated newsgroup. II. WHAT GROUPS ARE REPRESENTED ON TALK.ABORTION? Just about every group you can imagine is represented. Of course there are the two major sides, pro-life and pro-choice. (Please read section IV, NAMES OF GROUPS.) There are also an infinite variety of opinions within those two groups. There are those who feel any abortion is wrong, be it to save the life of the mother, or to abort a foetus who has been conceived due to rape or incest. There are those who believe that abortions should be allowed at any time during the woman's pregnancy, on demand. There are those who believe that, while a foetus is truly a person, it is still the woman's choice to decide. There are those who believe that abortions should only be performed if the mother's life is in danger or if the woman has been raped. You'll find that no two people have exactly the same opinions, and that it is impossible to lump any person or group of people into one specific category. III. WHAT IS THE SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO? Rather poor. Most people seem to agree that one has to wade through a lot of posts written out of pure emotion to find those which have been carefully thought out. On a topic like this, which is so sensitive, most people do tend to get emotional once in a while. However, some of the best posts can be born out of raw emotion. If you are willing to take the time, you will find some great conversations underneath the surface, but it will take some digging. talk.abortion can range anywhere from 50 to 250 posts in one 24-hour period. IV. WHAT IF I HAVE A DISAGREEMENT WITH SOME OF THE NAMES OF THE GROUPS? Quite frequently, an argument springs up on talk.abortion about the names of the various groups. It usually tends to run along the lines of, "You're not pro-life, you're ANTI- CHOICE!" or, "You're not pro-choice, you're PRO-DEATH!" It seems to be fruitless to attempt to convince someone on the other side of the issue that their chosen label (pro-life, pro-choice, etc.) does not accurately describe their posi- tion. Such attempts commonly degenerate into name calling. If you are more interested in debating issues rather than engaging in flamewars, it is usually best to refer to the other person's position by the label that they have chosen. Since it seems as if the majority of people who oppose legal abortion choose to call themselves pro-life, and the majority of people who support legal abortion choose to call them- selves pro-choice, those labels are used in this FAQ. It is not safe to assume that either label applies to any given writer, however. At least one participant in talk.abortion prefers "pro-abortion," rather than "pro-choice." V. ARE ALL PRO-LIFERS CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS OR CATHOLICS? ARE ALL PRO-CHOICERS PAGANS? ARE ALL PRO-CHOICERS WOMEN? ARE ALL PRO-LIFERS MEN? ARE ALL PRO-LIFERS VIRGINS? ARE ALL PRO-CHOICERS IMMORAL AND PROMISCUOUS? No, no, no, no, no, and no. As was stated above, one can not lump anyone from either side into any category. Over the time that talk.abortion has been in existence, it has seen every type of person post. Gross generalizations will tend to get the poster in some very hot water. This is not an attempt to censor posting, but rather a reminder how things like this tend to move us away from the issues at hand. VI. IS THERE A LOT OF FLAMING? Yes, an extraordinary amount. Emotions run high with this issue anyway, and of course the people who will take the time to post to talk.abortion are those who are going to feel the strongest about the issue. There are two times when people tend to flame the most: a) When they are backed into a corner. If someone has trapped another person in an argument, that's when the flames tend to start from the person who has been backed in. b) When a person makes a blatant statement without any proof, i.e. "You're wrong and that's that!" "Abortion is murder, plain and simple!" "All pro-lifers are anti- women!" When a person says something like this, duck for cover, because they are likely to get flamed rather badly. Unfortunately, (b) often tends to happen because (a) happens. Needless to say, it is best not to flame, because it affects the signal-to-noise ratio and makes talk.abortion harder to read. The truth is, though, that we all tend to flame at times, and we will all get flamed at some point, so we do the best we can not to let it get to us. By the way, it's useless to write, "Don't flame me for saying this..." in your post. It won't stop any- one from flaming you. If you do not want to get flamed, don't post to talk.abortion. VII. HOW SHOULD I INTRODUCE MYSELF? There are three approaches that are commonly used, which can be listed for you here: a) Post a short biography of yourself, stating your position and why they feel that way in a nice, gentle, non-offensive manner. You are bound to get some friendly greetings from both sides of the issue if you do it this way. However, your post might also get lost in the high volume on talk.abortion. b) Slide right into the conversations at hand, which also works well, saving yourself from those embarrass- ing introductions. c) Post something with a subject header all in CAPITAL LETTERS where you say something along the lines of, "I AM APPALLED AT <insert side> FOR BEING SUCH ABSO- LUTE YUTZES ON THIS ISSUE! ABORTION IS <a right/im- moral> AND THERE'S NO DEBATE ABOUT IT! WHY DON'T ALL THE <pro-lifers/pro-choicers> GO JUMP OFF A BUILDING AND MAKE THIS <world/country> A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE!" Needless to say, this is probably not a good way to introduce yourself to talk.abortion. VIII. IF I DON'T WANT TO POST PUBLICLY, IS IT OK TO RESPOND BY PRIVATE E-MAIL? Yes, but I heartily recommend stating whether or not you would allow the person receiving the mail to post it to the Net if they so desire. (We've had many conversations on the issue of people doing just that in the past.) It will prevent future mis-understandings. There have been occasions where people on both sides have been harassed by people on the opposite sides of the issue by private e-mail. If this happens to you, promptly tell the person in private that you do not wish to receive any more mail from that person. If they persist, tell your system admini- strator about the problem. If the problem still persists and you want to take the matter public to the Net, realize you are stepping in some very hot water there. Some people feel adamantly about private e-mail never being posted (due to the fact it is private and it can also be easily forged) and some others feel it is the only way to stop harassment. This FAQ takes no sides on the issue. However, a warning is appropriate: If you do post private e-mail, prepare for some major flames. There have been a number of occasions of this happening in recent memory, and when the person posted the private e-mail, there was fierce discussion on the issue each time. If someone is harassing you publicly, you have no options but to ignore them or harass them back. There are a few people out there who have intense animosity towards specific people on the other side of the issue, and the language and flames between the two of them often gets intense. When harassment is public, at least you have other people on your side supporting you. IX. WHAT IF I HAVE SOME STATISTICS I WANT TO POST? DOCUMENT THEM! We have a major problem on talk.abortion with people posting statistics off the tops of their heads, and then not quoting the source. (After all, everybody knows that 63.7% of stats are made up.) If you post that the majority of people are pro-life, you are wrong. If you post that the majority of people are pro-choice, you are wrong. The only useful statistic is a documented statistic, not one created from something like, "Well, most of the people I know are <pro-choice/pro-life>, and and my rallies are bigger than the other side's, so the majority of people in this country must agree with me!" When you do document a statistic, it is best if you can also tell just how that statistic was reached. At the April pro- choice rally in Washington DC, there were people on the Net who said that there were 31,000 people there, and people who said that there were over one million people there. Those were from rough guesses. The official estimates ranged anywhere from 100,000 to 750,000+, all dependent on what source you looked at. Each group that tried to count did it in a different way, each with different ways in which their counting could have been high or low in comparison with the actual number. When one states just how the statistic was reached, that allows the people on talk.abortion themselves to decide the merit of the statistic. By the way, don't expect to convince many people on the other side, even with statistics. There are many people on both sides who claim that their group's rally in Washington DC was bigger, and nothing will convince either side otherwise. After all, a pro-choicer is much more likely to believe a statistic compiled by NOW, and a pro-lifer is much more likely to believe a sta- tistic compiled by Operation Rescue. In addition to all of this, you should probably try to post statistics in as fair a manner as possible. A statement like, "1.5 million children are murdered each year!" does nothing to help the discussion, especially if the people on the other side don't believe that it is murder. (See the definition of MURDER in the second of the three FAQ documents.) Instead, "1.5 mil- lion abortions are performed each year," is much more factual and gets right to the point of the issue. Likewise, an asser- tion, "Members of Operation Rescue bombed six abortion clinics last year!" is invalid. Six clinics might have been bombed, but to say that members of Operation Rescue did it is unwarranted, unless it has been proved in a court of law. X. MAY I USE TALK.ABORTION TO ANNOUNCE MARCHES AND RALLIES? Absolutely. talk.abortion may be considered a public service, so feel free to post information on anything you choose, in- cluding the following: - how a person may obtain an abortion - where a person might go to get abortion counseling - where a person who chooses not to have an abortion might go for advice an support - the various options available to people seeking abortions - information on the work of such organizations as Planned Parenthood, Birthright, NARAL, NOW, Operation Rescue, etc. - when rallies/parades/marches/protests/blockades are going to take place, regardless of how the other side feels about the fact these are taking place - texts of recent laws and court decisions affecting abortion - how certain politicians feel about the issue (document it...) - upcoming movies/documentaries/television shows about abortion - movements to pass a bill, stop a bill, etc. talk.abortion should be considered an information source for people on both sides of the issue, especially for the first four categories listed. As debaters, we tend to forget that there might be people pregnant, scared, and in need of help, with talk.abortion as their only source for information. It might also be a much healthier forum for debate if both sides engaged in more of this. XI. WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN SOMEONE WRITES: a) z/e/f? z/e/f is short for zygote/embryo/foetus. It is a term often used by people on the pro-choice side. While a pro-lifer will call it a baby or a child, a pro-choice person does not wish to give that kind of attribution. However, the unborn is not always a foetus, either, when speaking in medically correct terminology. Therefore, this term covers all the bases. b) TBA? TbBA? TBA is not To Be Announced, it stands for Truth by Blatant Assertion. It is an acronym used commonly by both sides. If a person does not have a logical or rational argument, they will often say something along the lines of, "Well, it is/isn't murder because I say so and that's that!" This is Truth by Blatant Assertion; the writer is hoping that if they say it vehemently enough, everyone will see that they are right. This is not a good way to argue if one wants to do it with logic. c) NFP? * NFP stands for Natural Family Planning, which is popularly * known as the "rhythm method." It is a type of birth control * practiced by some Catholics and others. No artificial birth control is used. Rather, followers of NFP study the biological patterns of the woman to try to determine when she is fertile and when she is not. d) POV? Point of View. e) IMO? IMHO? IMNSHO? In My Opinion, In My Humble Opinion, and In My Not So Humble Opinion, respectively. f) WRT? "with respect to," or "with regard to." XII. WHAT ARE SOME OF THE COMMON DISCUSSION THREADS? Many thanks to Siren for sending me the original list of these threads. Not all of the information sent could be incorporated, but I hope this gives newcomers a sense of what is discussed here. - Absoluteness of Morality and Ethics This thread always seems to start with someone asking, "Is it right to abort a foetus?" It then continues on to debate the value of human life, and the importance of human life over other forms of life. This thread consists of some often interesting explanations of personal philosophy. - Adoption vs. Abortion Facts and myths about adoption, from both sides. Usually someone will state that adoption is the best answer to the whole debate about abortion. Others will then agree, and some will make a case that adoption is not always a better answer than abortion. - Bible Study Interesting insights into the tradition of Judeo-Christian religion. Much discussion about various Bible quotes and debate over whether the Bible prohibts abortion or tacitly condones it. - Birth Process This usually begins with one person stating that pregnancy is easy, and that it is not difficult at all for a woman to give birth. This is then countered/supported with the personal experiences of women who have gone through a pregnancy and possibly birth. This tends to be a very emotional issue, and it is advised that no one trivialize the difficulties involved in pregnancy. - Child Support A tangential issue best avoided by the weak of stomach including a tremendous amount of flames and name calling, as well as half- truths and lies from both sides. There are frequent calls to take this thread into alt.abortion.inequity. - Constitution A number of people on talk.abortion have great knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, and much debate goes on regarding the inter- pretation of the Constitution with regards to abortion. It should be reminded of people that t.a is an international forum, and U.S. laws do not apply to many readers of t.a. - Feminism and the Abortion Dilemma What is the role of modern feminism in the abortion debate? This discussion usually centers around the policies of groups such as NOW, Feminists for Life, and the policies of well-known feminists. - Fetal Development Facts about gestation and fetal development are discussed at length and their relevance to abortion expounded. The purpose of this thread is usually to determine when life actually begins, or if the unborn foetus is truly a separate organism from the mother or not. - Flaming There are many private flame wars going on in this newsgroup, most of which have nothing to do with abortion. You can usually recognize these by their bastardizations of other people's names in the subject header. - Hitler, Nazism, the Holocaust, and Abortion People battle valiantly against the verbicide of the word "Nazi" and others, and inaccurate analogies. This topic invariably degrades into both sides calling the other side "Nazi's." On the pro-life side of the argument, those who argue on this thread state that Hitler condoned abortions, the Nazi's practiced it, and therefore it is evil. On the pro-choice side, they claim that the pro-lifers are doing just what the Nazi's did, forcing other people to conform to their beliefs. Many comparisons are drawn between the Holocaust and abortion, drawing shock and out- rage from others. A word of warning: Don't trivialize this subject. There are many people who have been deeply touched and affected by these subjects, and for the sake of these people it is recommended that this thread be avoided by everyone. - Law and the Supreme Court Discussion: Roe v. Wade, the Gag Rule, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the Freedom of Choice Bill, the Human Life Amendment, as well as miscellaneous laws in various states and in other countries, especially Ireland. - Life of the Mother Should abortions be allowed if the life of the mother is at stake? This often delves into the relative importance of a foetus versus that of a mature woman. This is also a topic which tends to explode when it reaches critical mass. - Parent Notification and Public Sex Education The ever-changing family in a tumultuous society. Should our sons and daughters be taught about sex, pregnancy, and abortion in the public schools? Should one, both, or none of the parents be notified if a young woman wants to have an abortion? What should the age cutoff be? This often strays from the topic, but holds many interesting points and concerns. - Population and Society The effect of abortion or lack thereof on the population of the world or the country. - Procreation and Contraception The purpose of sex and what this has to do with abortion. Usually framed with Biblical quotes and much flaming. Often debates the merits of NFP, and whether the Catholic Church condones or condemns NFP. - Rape and Incest Should exceptions be made for abortion in the case of rape or incest? Many people believe that it should; however, the official Catholic Church position is that this should not be an exception. Therefore, this issue tends to explode violently every time it arises. (Personal note: Rape is a very charged issue for many * people on talk.abortion. There are people on this discussion group who have been personally affected by rape. When discussing the issue, please try to be civil and considerate to those who have a greater stake in this issue than you or I.) - Responsibility to the Foetus A buzzword thread. Very little of substance ever comes through here. What responsibility does a woman and society as a whole have towards a foetus, and does that responsibility end after birth? - Rights of the Father A thread which is usually bumped over into alt.abortion.inequity. Should a woman have to notify the father about the abortion? Should the man have a say as to whether the woman should be able to abort the foetus or not? - Values and the Relativeness to Abortion. Wherein the concept of absolute rights of the woman and the foetus is fired on from a variety of approaches in an intriguing display. In closing, talk.abortion is a very volatile roller-coaster of a News- group. It has to be, with an issue this sensitive and this close to the heart. This FAQ is not an attempt to control posts. It is an attempt to give new readers a source of information that they can refer to in order to find out more about talk.abortion. Enjoy the heat. ****************************************************************************** The FAQ documents were written by: Erik R. Jones The following people contributed to these FAQ documents. I owe my thanks to each of them for their contributions, large or small. *Jim Ault - Address for Operation Rescue *E. Elizabeth Bartley - Information on common acronyms, statistics * and information on abortion and foetal * development Linda Birmingham - Some excellent opinions on the nature of FAQ's, helping me work on the tone of the documents Keith Cochran - Wrote a previous FAQ, which helped get this entire idea rolling; ideas for definitions Kevin Darcy - The text of Ohio v. Akron, and general editing comments Ray Fischer - Inspiration for splitting this up into three docs, as well as an acronym suggestion Susan Garvin - Suggesting the info on the groups and sending me said info, forwarding the Freedom of Choice Act to me, the text of Section IV of the first document, and keeping me honest through this whole process James Keegan - Many thoughtful comments regarding the tone of the FAQ, as well as thoughts about religion and the abortion debate Larry Margolis - General comments and definition ideas, plus the Roe v. Wade text Sarah McCabe - Inspiration for putting in some definitions, general editing *George F. McQuary - Thoughts on NFP Michael Moore - An acronym suggestion Kristy Patterson - The first one to give me the idea for adding in the Supreme Court decisions Don Porter - Terrific information on Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, and Rust v. Sullivan, as well as forwarding me the text to the Human Rights Amendment, which was ori- ginally posted by Bill Overpeck. Nora Rivkas - Many thanks for your original comments, which were the original catalyst to get me working on this project Rocker - General editing comments Siren - A very informative and valuable FAQ, much of which was incorporated into this one, most notably the list of many of the subject threads ******************************************************************************