Keebler@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (06/10/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ > From: mn@dscvax2.UUCP (Matt Noah) > > > From: hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa (Keebler) > > > > "We now have a good reason for abortions. (Pro-abortion, as opposed to > > pro- choice.) Gary Samuelson has just provided us with ample figures to > > show us that abortions aren't wasted away. Ain't that nice? Let's say > > we have 1.5 million abortions. Not only is that 1.5 million less mouths > > to feed, bods to cloth, education to provide, etc. ... that's 1.5 > > million abortions free to used in some practical manner. So what do you > > say, Gar? How about some PROABORTION posters so we can get this > > economic potential rollin', huh?" > > Please don't be flippant about human life. And don't feel feel > personally responsible for all those lives. You don't have to feed and > clothe all those people. There are plenty of pro-lifers who are set up > to help in that regard. The government, no doubt, will help as it is > now. Did you know that the government collects taxes? Specifically, it collects a lot of my paycheck. Saying that the government will help means that *I* will help, whether I like it or not. So please don't patronize me with your attitude. I am NOT that stupid. Incidentally, you seem to want to portray me as a heartless person, not wanting to help the poor, etc. Please understand that I simply do not want more of them to help. Sooner or later, your pro-life organizations are going to start demanding more and more help from the government. I DON'T like to support the mouths that YOU forced others to create! Human beings or not, if you have so much compassion and heart, help the poor and needy that are ALREADY born! Don't force people to have more if they don't want them! > Just stay out of the way of us who want to help. I cannot > understand the upbringing of someone who argues about human life from a > mainly economic point of view. I cannot comprehend the upbringing of someone who cares only about ideal human life principles without any regard for the practical principles. > > This is why I would side with the pro-choice people. It makes a lot > > more sense to allow someone to apply her own judgements to her own body. > > Why do you always neglect to mention the body of the person she is > carrying? That little body depends on people taking care of it well > beyond birth. Because that body happens to be semi-human. Hence it has semi-rights. If you think everyone should have equal rights, irregardless of age/development, I suggest that you push for legislation to draft senior citizens as well as 2-year-olds. While you're at it, add a few bills to eliminate the drinking age laws. And of course, get rid of things like the movie rating system. If you think this is ridiculous, you're right! But if you go for idealism ... > > Anyway, rather than posting things that will potentially infuriate and > > excite people's emotions, how about a little more rational arguments. I > > have seen a lot of chants of "pro-dead-babies, pro-death, pro-abortion, > > pro-communist, pro-child-molesting, etc..." applied to pro-choice > > people. Yes, no one will stop you from speaking such slanderous > > falsehoods, as you have the right to say it. However, I and many others > > will continue to point out the fallacies of these purely emotional > > statements. > > Slanderous Falsehoods? I think not. Some of those terms apply to some > of the people. You are just whistlin' dixie. How about some evidence to support your statement? > Don't presume to think so highly of yourself that you > and many others will "point out the fallacies ...". Once again, drop the patronizing shit. > The truth is that > life is a mystery; we know its vital signs but we cannot give it. If you have ever opened a high school biology textbook, you would know what constitutes life. Life is hardly a mystery. Biology is not some pseudo- science like alchemy or astrology. "It's a mystery" is just a cop-out. > I > don't presume to define it but I do voice an opinion as to when society > should protect it. You don't have to define it. It's already defined in the textbook that you never bothered to read. > I also believe it is important enough to legislate > it so that we may stem the tide of death and reverse an attitude that > human life is not sacred. "tide of death"? Listen, Matt, cut the crap with the emotion appealing language. Use something objective. Do you think objectively or what? Human life is NOT sacred unless you believe in some religion where God creates life in 7 days or something weird like that. It happens that I value my life. You value yours. I promise not to take yours if you don't take mine. Moreover, I promise not to force you to do things if you don't force me to do things. That's fine for a while. However, a 2-year-old is not going to be able to survive in the world without some help and decisions from someone more experienced. Hence, we give some of his/her rights to his/her guardian(s). For the sake of simplicity we have to draw the line somewhere. That's why there are things like the drinking age/driving age/drafting age/... The older you get, the more rights you get. A 2-year-old may be able to survive by itself. A fetus cannot. It lives on the mother. Its living rights are in the hands of its mother. Therefore, the mother may take away those rights at any time. If you want to legislate some law saying that the mother must allow the physicians to remove the fetus and to attempt to help it survive, I am even willing to support you. On the other hand, if you are only going after forcing the mother to carry the baby to full term, forget it. ___________________________________________________________________________ Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }