[net.abortion] pro-choice means choice for all

z@rocksvax.UUCP (Jim Ziobro) (09/19/85)

It is about time to point out to the anti-choice people the dangers of persuing
their anti-choice position.  Too often I hear about the "woman's" right to
choice.  Of course what is really meant is all humans have the right to choice
with respect to their bodies.  I would like to hear some examples of where
the anti-choice position would hurt all of humanity.
-- 
//Z\\
James M. Ziobro
Ziobro.Henr@Xerox.ARPA
{rochester,amd,sunybcs,allegra}!rocksvax!z

bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (09/20/85)

In article <rocksvax.1447> z@rocksvax.UUCP (Jim Ziobro) writes:
>It is about time to point out to the anti-choice people the dangers of persuing
>their anti-choice position.  Too often I hear about the "woman's" right to
>choice.  Of course what is really meant is all humans have the right to choice
>with respect to their bodies. ... 

But pro-choicers conveniently deny the humanity of a certain portion of the
population in order to deny them their rights.  Sounds a lot like 19th
century slavery to me.  I hope it doesn't become inconvenient to be a white
male over thirty or I'm in trouble.

I would like to hear some examples of where
>the anti-choice position would hurt all of humanity.
>-- 
>//Z\\
>James M. Ziobro
>Ziobro.Henr@Xerox.ARPA
>{rochester,amd,sunybcs,allegra}!rocksvax!z

Whenever you deny rights to one segment of the population for the benefit
of another you hurt all of humanity.  Life is an inalienable right; access
to an abortion is not.

-- 
Tom Albrecht 		Burroughs Corp.
			...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl

garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (09/20/85)

> It is about time to point out to the anti-choice people the dangers
> of persuing their anti-choice position.  Too often I hear about
> the "woman's" right to choice.  Of course what is really meant is
> all humans have the right to choice with respect to their bodies.
> I would like to hear some examples of where
> the anti-choice position would hurt all of humanity.

> James M. Ziobro

1.  "It's about time" -- as if you are saying anything new?

2.  I don't know any "anti-choice" people -- I know some who call
    themselves "pro-choice," and others who call themselves "pro-life,"
    but I don't know any who call themselves "anti-choice" (or
    "anti-life").  Labeling people is, at best, a necessary evil,
    and to insist on using a label which another does not
    wish to wear is disrespectful and hinders communication.

3.  You say you hear too much about the woman's right to choose;
    does that mean you want to hear about the unborns' "right to
    choice with respect to their bodies?"  (A semi-rhetorical
    question whose intent is to get you to talk about issues rather
    than use polemics.)

4.  If you don't already know of examples of "where
    the anti-choice position would hurt all of humanity,"
    how is it that you are sure that it is so dangerous?

5.  Do you have an equal interest in hearing some examples of where
    the "anti-life" position would hurt all of humanity?

Gary Samuelson

PS.  The word is "pursuing."  (If your note had any content, I
wouldn't bother correcting your spelling.)