peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/30/85)
Would one of the pro-life (quote-unquote) people care to tell me what they intend to do when it becomes possible to raise an egg to maturity outside the womb, or when it is possible to take any undifferentiated tissue and by suitable life-support measures (cloning) bringing it to term? No flip answers from either side, please. My mailbox is full enough as it is and I shan't be able to answer any flames... Why hasn't anybody opposed abortion on the grounds that it is a dangerous operation for the mother that can irreparably damage her cervix and uterus? I haven't seen anybody using this argument, despite the fact that it has a great deal more validity than the ones I've seen people using.
john@gcc-bill.ARPA (John Allred) (09/02/85)
In article <134@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >Why hasn't anybody opposed abortion on the grounds that it is a dangerous >operation for the mother that can irreparably damage her cervix and uterus? >I haven't seen anybody using this argument, despite the fact that it has a >great deal more validity than the ones I've seen people using. Probably because the mother's cervix and uterus are her concern, and no one elses. -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (09/04/85)
In article <134@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >>Why hasn't anybody opposed abortion on the grounds that it is a dangerous >>operation for the mother that can irreparably damage her cervix and uterus? >>I haven't seen anybody using this argument, despite the fact that it has a >>great deal more validity than the ones I've seen people using. Probably because childbirth can also irreparably damage her cervix and uterus, so what difference does it make? -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (09/04/85)
> Why hasn't anybody opposed abortion on the grounds that it is a > dangerous operation for the mother that can irreparably damage her > cervix and uterus? /* Written 3:51 pm Aug 30, 1985 by > peter@graffiti.UUCP in ccvaxa:net.abortion */ ---------- Because it is statistically much less dangerous than carrying a fetus to term and giving birth. -- scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (09/05/85)
[line eater fodder] Peter Da Silva: > Why hasn't anybody opposed abortion on the grounds that it is a dangerous > operation for the mother that can irreparably damage her cervix and uterus? > I haven't seen anybody using this argument, despite the fact that it has a > great deal more validity than the ones I've seen people using. Probably because carrying a pregnancy to term is much *more* dangerous than an abortion is to the life and health of the mother. ---------------- Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm