mn@dscvax2.UUCP (Matt Noah) (04/03/85)
>Do we lock-up the criminals that unwanted, uncontrolled, >unraised children become? Do we wait 18-20 years and kill them in the >gas chamber then? Misconception or generalization. I don't believe unwanted --> uncontrolled --> unraised correlates at all. The writer seems to infer that the 18 million or so aborted babies since 1973 would have grown into criminals whose acts would have lead them to the gas chamber. Is this rationality? >IF your beliefs impel you to attempt to control actions of others, then >you are equally responsible to consider ALL the actions dependent on your >pivotal point (and I certainly haven't the imagination to list them all). >"No abortion" treats a symptom, and treats it ineffectively. What to do? Then the pro-choice people are responsible for all the effects created by the legalization of abortion. Swiss cheese argument, sorry. Abortion is easily recognized as both problem and symptom as most netters would agree if they gave it two seconds thought. I agree that it treats a PROBLEM ineffectively. >What is your "best possible world" scenario? Maybe we can bypass all the >rhetoric. I personally don't know anybody who thinks abortion is a game, >to be undertaken on a lark, "hey, everybody ought to go through it once." >The camps seem to be divided between those who consider an unwanted >pregancy a personal issue (I do) and those who consider it a social >issue, open to the discussion and control of society at large. I believe most people see it as both a personal issue and a social issue. Pro-choicers and Pro-lifers see the woman's perspective and can relate. The camps divide because pro-lifers see the infant's overriding rights when it comes right down to it. Matt
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (04/09/85)
>>What is your "best possible world" scenario? Maybe we can bypass all the >>rhetoric. I personally don't know anybody who thinks abortion is a game, >>to be undertaken on a lark, "hey, everybody ought to go through it once." >>The camps seem to be divided between those who consider an unwanted >>pregancy a personal issue (I do) and those who consider it a social >>issue, open to the discussion and control of society at large. > >I believe most people see it as both a personal issue and a social issue. >Pro-choicers and Pro-lifers see the woman's perspective and can relate. >The camps divide because pro-lifers see the infant's overriding rights >when it comes right down to it. Notice: "infant's overriding rights" was a phrase used. Pregnant women, remember that! That infant has more rights than you! That infant has more rights than anything else (except possibly another infant?)! Perhaps we should set up some means of monitoring these pregnant women so that they don't even have an opportunity to threaten that infant's rights! Perhaps, even women who just had sex should be monitored as well, who knows, they might be pregnant! -- James C. Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa End Random Pulses! Insert CV! Neutralize the Q-Switch! Activate viewer warning of Imminent Public Execution!
johnston@spp1.UUCP (Micheal L. Johnston) (04/16/85)
> >>What is your "best possible world" scenario? Maybe we can bypass all the > >>rhetoric. I personally don't know anybody who thinks abortion is a game, > >>to be undertaken on a lark, "hey, everybody ought to go through it once." > >>The camps seem to be divided between those who consider an unwanted > >>pregancy a personal issue (I do) and those who consider it a social > >>issue, open to the discussion and control of society at large. > > > >I believe most people see it as both a personal issue and a social issue. > >Pro-choicers and Pro-lifers see the woman's perspective and can relate. > >The camps divide because pro-lifers see the infant's overriding rights > >when it comes right down to it. > > Notice: "infant's overriding rights" was a phrase used. Pregnant women, > remember that! That infant has more rights than you! That infant has more > rights than anything else (except possibly another infant?)! Perhaps > we should set up some means of monitoring these pregnant women so that > they don't even have an opportunity to threaten that infant's rights! > Perhaps, even women who just had sex should be monitored as well, who > knows, they might be pregnant! > -- > James C. Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa Read it again. Quantity wasn't discussed. The idea is a priority of rights. The right to life having a greater priority (as our founding fathers saw it) than the right to have complete freedom over one's body. Both rights should be able to coexist. When there is a conflict by which only one of the rights may survive is where the priority hand is played. Mike Johnston