I'd lie to request that those who which to carry on a battle which cannot be won by either side to take it off list. I'm already sick and tired of all of the venom and animosity that has been created. I get enough of that in other political venues.
Dr. Bob Wildlbood
Lecturer in Psychology
Indiana University Kokomo
Kokomo, IN 56904-9003
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


On 25 Feb, 2005, at 19:20, Paul Okami wrote:

First, I would like to say that I find the "prochoice" label obnoxious and a
clearly intentional political ploy, as was the claim that "rape is not a
sexual crime." I also thought that the Google business and not-so-veiled
personal attack on Al was entirely unwarranted.


That said, I cannot understand why, after all these years it is still being
concluded that "the true issue at stake is whether that mass of cells is in
fact a "life" deserving of protection. If it's
not, you ought to be able to choose to do whatever you wish to it. If it is,
you shouldn't have the right."


The point is not whether or not the fetus is a life. The fetus might well
be a life that women ought to be legally permitted to terminate anyway for
any number of reasons--self-defense, for example, or the greater good of
society (as is the case for deaths taken in war, which are not considered to
be murder).


I abhor abortion, but I would not want laws passed against it because I
think the consequences of such a decision would be severe. It is possible
to view abortion as an evil that has resulted inevitably from the way that
modern society has evolved--for example, lack of social support to
parents--to realize that it is not going to go away, and therefore to not
want to create additional problems by making it illegal. This is similar to
the strategy of legalizing even dangerous recreational drugs such as tobacco
and alcohol which kill millions of people annually, and it is similar to
legalizing capital punishment (which I also abhor) and war (which I also
abhor).


The point is whether abortion should or should not be legal, not whether or
not the fetus is a life. We kill people and other sentient beings all the
time, and only under certain circumstances do we call it murder.


Paul Okami



----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Shealy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: TV/VCR Alert


Karen wrote:
Furthermore, I teach in California and haven't heard of Al Shealy at CSU.
I Googled his name and did not find a direct reference to him or to any
affiliation with CSU.


Al responds:
Let the witch hunt begin! Have you heard the news? 49 other states have
been admitted to the union. It was in all the papers. I've posted an
affiliation on TIPS before. Since you like googling, I'll let you keep
going. The fact that my affiliation matters to you reveals a lot.


Then she wrote:
Finally, although I'm strongly prochoice and teach human sexuality, I am
concerned about how to appropriately handle this topic in a general
education class. I'm also wondering how this new National Geographic video
will be received by the public.


Al responds again:
The reason you are "concerned about how to appropriately handle this
topic" is because you have a conscience. You decide whether you use it.


Finally she wrote:
The ANTI CHOICE advocates have successfully framed the debate by
repeatedly using the term "antiabortion" instead of antichoice,"

And Al responds:
If you honestly believe this, you are insane. They use the term
"antiabortion" because they are against abortion. I wish I could remember
the book I read a few years ago (written by a prochoice leader). They
explained that the use of the word "choice" was a very carefully planned
strategic move. "Pro choice" sounds good. Any one who is not "pro choice"
must be "anti choice" and therefore evil. It was the "pro choice" crowd
that framed the entire debate. In fact, the true issue at stake is whether
that mass of cells is in fact a "life" deserving of protection. If it's
not, you ought to be able to choose to do whatever you wish to it. If it
is, you shouldn't have the right. So the heart of the issue is not choice,
it's the definition of life. But even college professors with Ph.D.s have
been infected by the framing of the "pro choice" crowd.


Al

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]




---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to