tim@isrnix.UUCP (06/28/83)
I think there is really only one major argument against abortion and it
is one that I do give some weight-that is that it represents the taking
of a life in some form. However so does eating cows and chickens and
pigs, etc. So does even eating vegetables for that matter! Personally
I cannot abidr the idea of eating an animal that has been killed just
for me to eat so I follow vegetarianism. However because I personally
think vegetarianism is better and shows more respect for life doesn't
mean that I will force my own sense of morality on others. it is their own
decision whether they will eat murdered animals or not. So I feel that
some people could oppose abortion personally out of a respect for life-
but I don't think they should impose their moral choice on that issue
on others legally-try to encourage people not to have abortions, provide
places to take the unaborted babies (AND somewhere to take care of them
the rest of their life--it seems that many anti-abortionists forget about
the kid once it's born--yet if you wish to see that life brought into the
world then you also assume some responsibility for seeing that it is
a decent life for that child) I think that many child-beatings occur
from unwanted children-the parents were not really prepared to have a kid
but had it anyway and resent it's intrusion on their life, the pressure
the child creates for more money,etc. Abortion is one means of preventing
this type of abuse which results in some really sick kids who may go
on to criminal behavior, become psychopaths or just be mentally deranged
for the rest of their lives from the experience of being constantly beaten.
Another way would be to take those kids and put them in another more
loving environment. I would like to see the anti-abortionists put their
effort into that instead of into coercing people to follow their own
sense of morality.
Tim Sevener
decvax!pur-ee!iuvax!isrnix!timhfavr@hogpd.UUCP (A.REED) (02/28/84)
squirt::arndt writes, QUOTE: It seems self-evident to me that even the first few cells after conception ARE human and ARE living. That is, they are not cat or dog cells, but genetically HUMAN. Also they are not non-living like a rock, but ARE alive. Ergo, whatever else abortion is it IS the stopping of human biological life. UNQUOTE. By this reasoning, cancer surgery is also the stopping of human life. Cancer cells are not cat or dog cells, but genetically HUMAN. Also they are not non-living like a rock, but ARE alive. I recall reading a satirical/futuristic novel some years ago (possibly by J. Sobran, although I am not sure about the author) in which, after the passage of a constitutional amendment protecting such forms of life, the attempt to remove a cancerous growth became a criminal conspiracy to commit murder. The protagonist encounters the still cancer-ridden would-be "murderer" in Yankee Stadium, which has been turned into a prison compound for such offenders. An alternative definition, originally proposed by Aristotle, is that human life is sapient life. It may still be an open question as to exactly when in development one becomes sapient, i. e. human, but at least we are sparmd the absurdity of an alleged equality of rights between a human being and a mindless cluster of cells.