hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (04/05/85)
______________________________________________________________________ > { From: T. C. Wheeler wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP } > > I feel that Fowler and Gray have a lot to learn about human na- > ture, especially men. There are plenty of men who will "go along > with the program" just to gain something even though they do not > believe in the program. The abortion issue is no different. Unfortunately for you, it is very difficult to prove something like that, much less accurately attributing it to all people of a group. You can guess and assert all you want, but to prove it, you'll need to do much more. Just saying "it's human nature" proves nothing. > As for the convenience issue, I stick to my guns. I don't in- > clude the ignorant teenager in this argument, that's another is- > sue. So teenagers can go ahead and have abortions, but responsible adults can't ... now I understand ... > I address this argument to the well educated woman and man > who, steeped in their own selfishness and hedonistic lifestyle, > and because they lack self-control and any modicum of responsi- > bility, opt for an abortion just so they can continue. Do you care to substantiate any of this with some hard facts? Or should I simply disregard you as a loud-mouthed ignoramus? > Don't say > they do not exist, because they do and have been vocal here on > this network over the past two years. Once again, you are making guesses and assertions that are extreme- ly difficult to backup with any HARD EVIDENCE. Remember, you make a very specific proposition above. You might be better off with a general assertion or simply without any assertions at all. > I've heard the stories, "Well, I just want to get my degree > first." "I want to do some travelling." You seem to suggest that these are excuses. That is, you ASSUME that the people involved DO consider having a baby as a responsibil- ity. Thus, an abortion is a quick and dirty way of getting out of that responsibility. (This would almost rank them with Phyllis Schlafly and her like.) Believe it or not, there are people who consider having a baby as a nuisance! Believe it or not, there are people who do not feel that they are obligated to have a baby. (OH! GOD FORBID!) > What they are saying is > that no-matter what, their convenience comes first. What's wrong with convenience? If you oppose convenience, why don't you move into the forest and give up all of your conveniences like tap water, electricity, etc ... Surely you are not setting some double standard here, are you? > Perhaps they > should be weeded out of society and force fed a large dose of > Biology. Wrong ... people like YOU who try to impose their morality on others should be weeded out of society and force fed a tiny dose of cyanide. > There was a time, before abortions became so common- > place, when people took responsibility for their actions. Why don't you give us the statistics for your claim? And while you are at it, make sure that you adjust for changes in laws that cover abortions. (Afterall, you ain't gonna get a lot of legal abortions if there is no such thing.) And just what do you use to define responsibility. Let me give you an example that you will surely disagree with, but it is just as much responsibility, if not more so: If a woman becomes pregnant, she has an obligation to terminate that pregnancy because the survival rate of embryos are so high (this is not Africa ...) that there exists processes called population explo- sions. Her responsibility to society is the termination of her preg- nancy. This situation and your ideal situation are equivalent except that each demands action that the other condemns. Your responsibility argument is irrelevant. > So > they wanted to finish their degree, fine, they took the necessary > precautions, learned how their bodies worked, and still enjoyed > the good life. They did not opt for the easiest way out. If > mistakes were made, they accepted their responsibility. Do you seriously think that "they" had a choice?! > With > today's abortion clinic just down the block, there is no need to > accept any responsibility, just get the little bugger salted and > life can go on as usual. In today's world, the hospital is just down the street. If you catch a bug, you can just run down the street and nuke that virus. Gee, how irresponsible! How about fighting it out! You wimp! > These are not uneducated people. These > are not people who think that douching with a coke will prevent > pregnancies. I have the distinct impression that these people > think that morality, any morality, is a dirty word. Since it is only an impression, something hardly compatible with hard evidence, your assertions are meaningless. > Their own > convenience is the only watchword they understand. To hell with > everyone and everything else. Ditto ... > This is an attitude that offends > me and if you cannot accept that I am offended then it is your > problem. Wrong ... I don't give a shit how offended you are ... I could not careless ... you do NOT deserve my care ... if you are offended, the problem is YOURS, not mine. If you commit suicide because you are so blatantly offended by others, then you are dead. Meanwhile, I laugh at your stupidity. > If you get upset that the issue of convenience is being > discussed, then I must assume that you adhere to its tenents. Excuse me?! Where did you learn that logic? Upset = adhere? Since when? > I don't expect to change your attitude one whit, but maybe, just > maybe, you might examine your own feelings for about 10 ms and > see something that could stand some evaluation. I make no judge- > ments concerning the myriad of other abortion issues as I am > still evaluating the data in my mind. The only issue I feel > strong about is abortion for the convenience of the participants. Then you are wasting your precious time (and mine). > I abhor the bombings, I think Falwell's stance is assinine, I > support birth control education. On the other hand, I support > the strengthening of moral issues, especially in the home. > Perhaps morality is to strong a word, what I really mean is the > strengthening of character and the instilling of responsibility > at home. And whose brand of morality ... oh, excuse me ... character strength and responsibility are you refering to? > If this is wrong to some of you, then I feel sorry for you and > there is no need to go any further. Hey, I wholehearted agree with your vague declaration. I don't think we even come close on specifics, however. > Just remember, it was convenient for the nazis to eliminate the > lame and infirm, it was convenient for them to force abortions, > it was convenient for Stalin to eliminate millons of Ukranians, > it is convenient for the Chinese to force abortions, You mean to tell me that enforcing abortions on a population so large is "convenient"? > it is con- > venient, perhaps? to euthanise our poor ethnic populations? "poor"? Do you mean impoverished? pitiful? My, but your prejudices seem to be fighting to get out into the open! > Where does convenience end? Could this scenario be too far off > --"I want to finish my degree, but my mother, who is in a nursing > home, takes too much of my cash reserves. Besides, she is senile > and won't care, let's just have her euthanized. After all, it > would be more convenient." Perhaps YOU might feel justified in doing that as long as we allow abortions, but I don't. I don't see any connections. If you think you can extend everything beyond its limits, then you are certainly naive and foolish. Abortion is abortion. It has nothing to do with neutralizing your mother. By the way, your convenience argument is not justifiable with any facts. Your responsibility argument does not hold water. Both of these are irrelevant. The real issue at hand is whether the fetus has full human status. ______________________________________________________________________ Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }