hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (04/18/85)
___________________________________________________________________ > { From: bmt@we53.UUCP } > > The same attitude results both in killing unborn children and in > abusing born ones. I. How about some statistics, rather than just some grandiose assertions?! II. Isn't it better to kill an unborn child than to put it through the misery of abuse later? If I were forced to rear a child because the government said I could not abort it, that child would become the symbol of the tyranny of the government. I might very well abuse it. On the other hand, if I am allowed to rear a child when I choose to, the child becomes a beautiful gift of nature. I would say that an anti-abortion law would be worse for a child if its existence was not planned. > This is the same attitude that has been chil- > lingly displayed, without apology or remorse, by some of you who > feel, as I said in a previous article, that > > "it's my right and I don't give a damn who it hurts!" Do you really think that women who have abortions "don't give a damn who it hurts"? How about the posts awhile ago that showed that a lot of women who have abortions go through emotional hell afterwards?! > The real issues are coming out, aren't they? You are now saying > what I have been saying, but the abortionists' PR has been deny- > ing - that if I want a baby killed, I don't care what anyone else > says, it's my right. It is hardly as nonchalant as you so portrayed. No one has been promoting abortion. Abortion is advertised as a solution (not the only one) to an unwanted pregnancy. Of course, birth control has also been advertised, and I think it ought to be stressed as the single most important factor in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Prevention is the key. On the other hand, doctors should always be around if vitamins and exercise don't do their jobs ... > The courts have been saying it too. The > courts are not pro-choice, they are pro-dead-baby. Hardly. They are pro-choice-in-the-first-trimester. You couldn't substantiate your statement if you life depended upon it. Your "evidence" below are nothing but rhetorically distorted rehashing of the law. If the courts are "pro-dead-baby" as you said, they would have granted abortion rights even AFTER birth. "pro-dead- baby"? You are out of your mind! ... > Recent court > decisions have upheld ANYONE's right to a dead baby. If the > mother wants an abortion and the father doesn't, the mother's > right is upheld. If the father wants his child aborted and the > mother doesn't, the father's rights are upheld. If the mother is > a minor and wants an abortion and her parents don't, the minor's > rights are upheld. If the mother is a minor and the parents want > the baby aborted and she doesn't, the parents' rights are upheld. > So please stop the lying about being "pro-choice". You're NOT. ... The law simply says that you may choose to have an abortion in the first trimester. It does not say that you MUST have an abortion. The courts are certainly pro-choice. ___________________________________________________________________ Live long and prosper. Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }
goodrum@unc.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum) (04/20/85)
In article <cmu-cs-e.242> hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) writes: >... The law simply says that you may choose to have an abortion in >the first trimester. It does not say that you MUST have an abortion. >The courts are certainly pro-choice. and > >Hardly. They are pro-choice-in-the-first-trimester. > If I remember the contents of the Roe Vs.Wade opinion correctly, I believe that the Supreme Court is also pro-choice-in-the-second-trimester. I believe that the only distinction made between the first and second trimesters is that states may regulate the conditions under which abortions are performed only in the second trimester. Cloyd Goodrum
bmt@we53.UUCP ( B. M. Thomas ) (04/23/85)
>I. How about some statistics, rather than just some grandiose > assertions?! I'd be glad to. Starting with you. Your attitude is well in evidence in your article. >II. Isn't it better to kill an unborn child than to put it through > the misery of abuse later? No. I can tell you of many unwanted, abused children who grew up and overcame their nightmares, and went on to become not only useful, well- adjusted citizens, but helped others in a way that most could not. > If I were forced to rear a child > because the government said I could not abort it, that child > would become the symbol of the tyranny of the government. I > might very well abuse it. On the other hand, if I am allowed > to rear a child when I choose to, the child becomes a beautiful > gift of nature. The child is a beautiful gift of "nature" whether you see it that way or not, whether you want it or not. It is your attitude that is ugly. Your response itself is powerful evidence of my claim. "If I can't abort it, I'll abuse it." So far, 100% my way. Next statistic? > I would say that an anti-abortion law would be > worse for a child if its existence was not planned. You mean not planned by its parents. All children are planned. I realize that you don't believe that. Doesn't mean it isn't true. >Do you really think that women who have abortions "don't give a >damn who it hurts"? How about the posts awhile ago that showed >that a lot of women who have abortions go through emotional hell >afterwards?! You're kind of playing both sides of this one, aren't you? It's not really easy to answer this one. Many do have just that attitude. I have also known several who have gone through the hell. Many, of course, of the same ones who did have this attitude BEFORE. What I'm saying is that the proponents of abortion speak up for their "rights" without regard to what is right or who may be harmed. >It is hardly as nonchalant as you so portrayed. No one has been >promoting abortion. Then surely it was the pro-life movement who coined the phrase "abortion rights". If you say it's a RIGHT, then you are PROMOTING it, no matter how you manage to twist the language. > Abortion is advertised as a solution (not the >only one) to an unwanted pregnancy. Of course, birth control has >also been advertised, and I think it ought to be stressed as the >single most important factor in preventing unwanted pregnancies. >Prevention is the key. On the other hand, doctors should always >be around if vitamins and exercise don't do their jobs ... And yet you insist that abortion is a right. You are still skirting the one fundamental point in this discussion: whether or not the mass of tissue in question is a person. If so, an unwanted pregnancy is not just another medical problem. There are those who have posted here very clear evidence of this attitude, saying that they believe that it IS a person, but "so what? my RIGHTS are more important". >Hardly. They are pro-choice-in-the-first-trimester. You couldn't >substantiate your statement if you life depended upon it. Your >"evidence" below are nothing but rhetorically distorted rehashing >of the law. If the courts are "pro-dead-baby" as you said, they >would have granted abortion rights even AFTER birth. "pro-dead- >baby"? You are out of your mind! ... My statements were about actual court cases. Notice that I did not say "the laws", but "the courts". The courts have also, as I have said elsewhere, stood up for doctors who chose to terminate accidental live births. In one case a nurse testified that the doctor present actually strangled the child, saying, "Die, damn it!" My charge stands. If I am out of my mind, the question still has to be answered. >... The law simply says that you may choose to have an abortion in >the first trimester. It does not say that you MUST have an abortion. >The courts are certainly pro-choice. It does say that the baby of a mother who wants an abortion MUST die. The "first-trimester" argument is a fiction, a smokescreen. Abortion is legal up to the moment of birth, as decided by the courts. Laws limiting "rights" in this way have been struck down already in principle and many times specifically. What I want to say is that these discussions have centered on "rights", largely disregarding what is right. If it's not right, you don't have a right to do it. There is a continual uproar about one person forcing his morals on another. This is not the point. The point is that people have grown into such selfish children that morality really doesn't enter into it. It is difficult when my three-year-old son says, when I tell him he can't do something, "But I WANT to!" It is thoroughly tragic when an adult says, much more loudly and with all kinds of logical-sounding arguments and even legal maneuvering, and with nobody to tell him no, "But I WANT to!"