pn (01/23/83)
I was surprised to hear today, Jan 22, is the tenth anniversary of the day women won the right to have abortions. I guess I've been ignorant of how recently some very important rights have been won.
laman (01/25/83)
From philabs!cmcl2!floyd!harpo!decvax!decwrl!amd70!pn (Phil Ngai) Sat Jan 22 23:48:58 1983
I was surprised to hear today, Jan 22, is the tenth anniversary of the
day women won the right to have abortions. I guess I've been ignorant
of how recently some very important rights have been won.
It is too bad that you didn't instead say to yourself:
I was surprised to hear today, Jan 22, is the tenth anniversary of the
day babys lost their rights by abortion. I guess I've been ignorant
of how recently some very important rights have been lost.
Do you want to hear something ironic?
Our week old baby was baptized on the 22nd (by coincidence). Little Stephanie
has rights as a little baby. Hmmm. She's a female, so she has the right to
abortion too (Please note the sarcasm!). Strange, I can't imagine a little
baby KILLING someone. Only "adults" can justify it to themselves. Strange,
the things we can justify to ourselves; isn't it.
Mike Laman
...sdcsvax!laman
P.S. Flame all you want. Just hit above the belt.
I know, now well hear attempts to justify to ourselves that my uses
of "someone" above was "wrong". If you are thinking about that, just
read the last sentence in that paragraph.laman (01/25/83)
From philabs!cmcl2!floyd!harpo!decvax!decwrl!amd70!pn (Phil Ngai) Sat Jan 22 23:48:58 1983
I was surprised to hear today, Jan 22, is the tenth anniversary of the
day women won the right to have abortions. I guess I've been ignorant
of how recently some very important rights have been won.
It is too bad that you didn't instead say to yourself:
I was surprised to hear today, Jan 22, is the tenth anniversary of the
day babys lost their rights by abortion. I guess I've been ignorant
of how recently some very important rights have been lost.
Do you want to hear something ironic?
Our week old baby was baptized on the 22nd (by coincidence). Little Stephanie
has rights as a little baby. Hmmm. She's a female, so she has the right to
abortion too (Please note the sarcasm!). Strange, I can't imagine a
baby KILLING someone. Only "adults" can justify it to themselves. Strange,
the things we can justify to ourselves; isn't it.
Mike Laman
...sdcsvax!laman
P.S. Flame all you want. Just hit above the belt.
I know, now we'll hear attempts to justify that my use of "someone" above
was "wrong". If you are thinking about that, just read the last sentence
in that paragraph.wakeup (01/26/83)
I disagree with Mr. Laman's opinion on abortion. I believe women should have the the right to abortion and let the individual woman choose if it is moral for her and when it is not. To me the whole issue revolves around the question of when life starts. If you believe life does not start untill birth, then abortion anytime is morally OK. If life starts at fertilization then abortion is not OK and neither are morning after pills or similar things. Since there is no general consensus or law defining the start of life I think women should be allowed to define for themselves when life starts. If they choose to abort If they choose to abort before then we should not judge or condem them since they made a difficult but moral (to them selves) decission.
gh (01/27/83)
I would be interested in hearing from any anti-abortionists out there, such
as sdcsvax!laman, whether they are vegetarians who also shun the use of animal
products such as leather, and if they are not, then how they reconcile the two
positions. I cannot see how a human fetus is a more worthy life than a
full-grown cow, unless perhaps the human one has a "soul" (making the argument
a purely religious one).
Graeme Hirst, Brown University
...!{decvax, vax135, yale-comix, cornell}!brunix!ghklick (01/27/83)
Saying that individual women have the right to make the moral decision regarding abortion is like saying that individuals have the right to decide if murdering (babies, children, adults) is morally correct. One serious danger arising from the current attitude toward murder before birth is precisely this: people (specifically parents) are already being allowed to decide that murder is all right after birth as well (I am referring to the case in Indiana in which a judge ruled that the parents of a severely deformed infant could let it starve to death). We do not have the right to make our own moral judgements when these judgements take away the rights of others - that's a major reason for law!
wm (01/27/83)
Well, I'll try to hit above the belt here (so to speak). This letter is in response to the letter wondering how people could justify abortion, which was in response to the person who was commenting on how recently abortion was made legal. It seems like we are discussing two different things here. One person is talking about the fact that abortions are LEGAL, and the other about whether they are MORAL. I don't agree with or like abortion, and would not suggest to someone that it is ok to do. Yet I was out last saturday in the rain at a pro-choice rally holding a sign celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Roe vs Wade decision. I believe that making abortions illegal will not stop them in the slightest, but will only hurt women and possibly kill them. Therefore, I am for choice, and will actively fight for it. If someone is against abortion, let them suggest alternatives. Making it illegal would be like making DRINKING illegal. And the anti-abortion forces even have the GALL to suggest a constitutional amendment! If we couldn't enforce an amendment against drinking, how in the world are we going to enforce an amendment against abortion. An elite corps of Pregnancy Police. Road blocks on the highway with spot checks (pun intended)? If people REALLY feel abortion is wrong, let them work to provide socially acceptable alternatives to abortion. It seems that most people who are against abortion are also for making women who get pregnant feel ashamed and sleezy (I can hear all the flames turning up from that one!) Let's see some real work in this area, instead of people just trying to make abortions illegal. If all the anti-abortion fervor and lobbying could be turned to provide alternatives to women who get pregnant, or safe, reliable methods of birth control (for men, as well as women) then maybe abortions will become a thing of the past. flame off Wm Leler - UNC Chapel Hill
tim (01/28/83)
It is obviously not legitimate for a person to be
allowed to make their own choice in a matter if it infringes
on someone else's right to make such a choice. This fact is
often used to support anti-abortion legislation, and was so
used recently in this group. This is totally irrelevant,
however. The issue in abortion is exactly whether or not the
fetus is an "other", not whether or not it is OK to trample
on someone else's rights.
A fetus cannot communicate with human beings, or do
anything on its own; it makes no contributions to society.
Therefore, the only way that you can justify giving it the
protection of the law is the belief that it has a "soul" and
that this "soul" is the real reason that *anyone* deserves
the protection of the law. The law, however, cannot recog-
nize the existence of the soul, only the social utility of
imposing order. The decision as to whether or not a fetus is
human is totally up to the individual, since it must be set-
tled on religious grounds. Therefore, abortion is *not*
murder legally, although it may be morally. For the law to
recognize the soul would be more harmful to society than to
continue what is morally murder; it would mean the end of
freedom of religion, since the state would then have to
adopt some "official" doctrine on the soul.
I often wonder what members of the new Right think the
rest of us are. To argue that "abortion isn't right because
it infringes on another's rights" implies that we were
unaware that it isn't OK to make our own decisions indepen-
dent of others' rights. I for one find this insulting.
Tim Maroney
unc!timlaman (01/29/83)
Now that I'm in this up to my nose, .... To discuss this with any hope of meaningful communication between each other, we should know what each other's (relevant) basic beliefs are. The last thing I (we) want is a discussion where everyone is talking on different levels. As I'm sure many of y'all know, this topic quickly boils down to a person's basic beliefs. My principal belief is in life. Everything else is secondary. Yes even my career; even though I am nearing completion of my masters degree. When I am in my later years and looking back on life, I'll be proud of my achievements, but I know that there are more important things in life. My programs will slowly fad away in time (assuming they hadn't done so already). So what will be the most important thing? Not my programs, degrees, or jobs. Time will come soon enough when "Mike Laman" will be forgotten along with the other BILLIONS of men and women that have lived, worked, struggled, achieved, contemplated, and died before me on this earth. Think about that : BILLIONS of people have lived before us. They have had the same hopes and dreams as we have. Look where those people are now. *Gone*. Sure many people have made contributions to mankind's knowledge. (I personally believe that it is a relatively small number). But is this all that remains of all of the people who have walked on this earth before us? I do not believe it is. There is something else. What about all the other people that exist with you now. They live and breath just as you do. We have descended from so many people before us. And it is here where I believe the answer is. I'm smart enough to know that all the articles I make, all the programs I write, all the buildings I build, ... will disappear with time. You will read this, hopefully think about it (maybe even reply), and go on to the next article. But my words and thought have touched you. Who knows maybe even influenced or changed you. And it is here where all people make their strongest impression on this earth. All the materialistic things will disappear as time goes on. But you have touched something that goes on for all mankind. You have touched someone. It is here where we think back (at least I do). How have I treated others? It is here where I believe we take true account of ourselves. To me, that is what really matters. Not the things I've made or the dreams I've dreamt, but the people I've helped, and more sharply in my mind, the people I've hurt. At this day and age, man has accumulated a LARGE amount of knowledge. But how is it used? We scrutinize everything. Take for example, the development of the zygote. We have separated its development into different stages. Now we sit around and try to convince ourselves when it is human enough to pass OUR OWN criteria. In our attempt to try and determine when WE think life begins, we seem to lose our grasp of the meaning of "life" itself. You can't see it under a microscope. You won't see it on a million slides. Look in your heart. That is where you will see life. You see life in the person you've held, the person you've yelled at, the person you've ignored. What really makes it difficult, is you haven't done any of those things with the unborn baby. If you somehow could, I believe you would be convinced that it is alive. Unfortunately, it is far too easy to alienate ourselves from something we haven't gotten attached to emotionally (it's already attached physically). Mike Laman sdcsvax!laman
tim (01/31/83)
This is exactly the sort of argument from the heart that can destroy a free government. I would never tell someone that they are not free to believe a fetus human. So why do they feel free to tell me I can't believe it isn't? If to you the issue is so obvious and simple, then act as your heart dictates IN YOUR OWN CASE. Don't try to tell me that your own emotions are a neccessary indicator of universal truth, though. Emotional arguments often say things like "If you will simply stop rationalizing and obey the dictates of your heart, you will have to agree with me." Some news for these people: not all hearts are the same. In my heart of hearts, I see the early fetus as a non-human organism no less than the unfertilized egg. Perhaps you would tell me that this is not really the way I feel. This is insulting. I know my feelings far better than you. Summarizing: Abortion is an emotional issue, and not one that can be solved in the general case by reason. Because of this, the government cannot get involved, since it is no more qualified than the individual to resolve this. I do not understand how people can consider themselves qualified to make other people's moral decisions for them. Tim Maroney duke!unc!tim
prgclb (02/01/83)
Bill Leler, I think your letter has been the
most constructive and sensible assessment of the
abortion controversy yet posted.
I too believe abortion is immoral,
but I also believe that back-alley abortions
are even more so (the ignorance, added suffering,
and organized crime participation are all part
of this immorality). And back-alley abortions
are what we're going to get by simplistically
making legal abortion illegal.
Problem is, so many anti-abortionists are the
very same people who are anti-education and
anti-birth control. Why did abortion become "legal"
in the first place? Because of inadequate birth control
information and practices, because society
socially outcast the unmarried pregnant girl/woman, etc.
>From my moral standpoint, I'm against abortion --
legal, illegal or however.
But we who are against abortion are not
going to stop it by carelessly passing laws
that deal with symptoms instead of causes.
This especially applies to amending the constitution -- a process
which our country's forefathers did not intend as
a method of single-issue legislation!
Those who advocate anti-abortion legislation
should also advocate legislation creating every means possible
to make people not want or need abortion in the first place.
Of course, my assessment/proposal is a bit simplistic,
but it seems like a step in the right direction . . .
Carl Bleschbrt (02/01/83)
Why stop with animals ? As long as we are at it , let's decide if plants have a soul ! ( I know some very friendly trees with a definite opinion on the subject !-) Let's face it , folks , vegeterianism (sp?) for the sake of "... not killing living beings..." is hypocritical . So where do we draw the line ? Is it OK to kill innocent little bacteria that reside on your skin ? You do that every time you wash your hands. Without belaboring the point any further , I will cast my vote with those advocating personal choice AND personal RESPONSIBILITY ! For one does not go without the other . not afraid to read a sermon once in a while B.Reytblat (...pyuxvv!brt) P.S.There are , by the way , other reasons for being a vegeterian . Some people are simply allergic to animal proteins and fats , and simply must be vegeterian .
abhay (02/01/83)
So we are all celebrating the 10th anniversary of the right accorded to women to have abortion. Suppose if it were the 50th anniversary would you all be reading this or the pro abortion writers on this group be writting had their mothers exercised THEIR RIGHT. Morality aside, demanding abortion as a right is an indication of selfishness (denying someone elses right to come in this world), weakness, irresponsibility (unwillingness to face the consequences of their act). It is a unfortunate that abortion has become a predominant tool of birth prevention. abhay