mn@dscvax2.UUCP (Matt Noah) (05/14/85)
> Isn't it odd that the "pro-lifers" posting to this group > are almost all men, while the "pro-choicers" are of both > genders but more likely to be women? Makes me wonder if > the pro-life men *REALLY* believe in women's right like > most of them claim to. If *I* had an unwnated child, > would *YOU* adopt it, or say, sorry you little slut, it's > all your fault. (And it's not likely to be a healthy > baby either...I have health problems that would most likely > affect it) Ann - if you can't use factual or faith-based arguments to justify your position, why burden us with your gender-based insights which are totally prejudicial? Generalizing is so de-humanizing. We are all individuals with minds of our own. Gloria Steinem is not philosophically close to Phyllis Schaffly even though both are women. If you had an unwanted child I would not adopt it. Maybe in a few years - at a different time in my life. That does not disqualify my philosophy or make me a hypocrite. I, like alot of people, also believe that everyone who wants to work should have the opportunity to do so. I can't provide a job for everyone who wants one BUT I can push for legislation and/or programs that would lead to my goals. Continuing the analogy, do you look at an unemployed person and think that they are shiftless, lazy drains on society? If you do, then I would say you look on them as *sluts* - in the analogous sense a woman with a problem pregnancy is a slut. No one with a right mind hopes for a baby with health problems but is a handicapped or retarded person's life any less important than a healthy person's? Who decides who lives? I think that question is best left up to God and nature. Hitler tried to decide who lived and who died in this world. A black American named Jesse Owens embarrassed him in front of the world. The reason he was embarrassed was that he realized that his purebreds were not superior but were just as capable of being beaten as anyone else. Physically, Hitler was healthy. Would he be aborted in a world with a healthy-baby-only society? Do you enjoy Beethoven's music? Not only would Beethoven have been aborted in healthy-baby-only society, so probably would all of his siblings. Well, not every handicapped or retarded person is a Beethoven you say. Certainly every healthy person is not Hitler. You might even be saying that caring and providing for these less-than-perfect individuals is an unwarranted drain on all our pocketbooks when we could be spending our well-earned money elsewhere. For most netters, who are doing better than most Americans, this would mean taking a slightly less extravagent vacation or driving the car another year before getting a new one. Considering all the wasteful, expensive things our government spends money on, why not use it for a good humane, human cause - helping our fellow man? What greater good can there be? > Men, if you really believe that there is plenty > of space for unwanted children, put your money where > your mouth is. And don't forget that this planet *IS* > approaching its capacity for supporting life. > > ann I don't believe there is space on this planet for your brand of philosophy. Abortion is an epidemic in this country! I strongly resent your contention that alot of good people - not just women - are just sitting on their hands moralizing. It shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. Pregnancy counseling centers, free housing and medical care as well as job training are being made available to as many women as can be accomodated. This is a huge problem! What are you doing to help solve it? Matt Noah