wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (12/06/84)
What seems to be missing from Ms Allen's long-winded article supporting abortion is any mention or realization that 95% of the *children* she is so stoutly consigning to oblivion do not have the problems she so loudly decries. As for the 5% that might, just might, fall into one of her neat pigeonholes of dispair and poverty she describes for all children, what does she suggest? She suggests kill them. Does this mean that we can retroactively get rid of all handicapped children, children born to poverty, abused children. My that sounds neat and orderly doesn't it? We can wipe out suffering by just aborting every child that even looks like it might be born into a troubled life. That was the most specious and foolish argument I have seen so far. And, to accuse pro-life people of not doing anything to try and better the lives of troubled children is just a cheap shot and complete falsehood. If Ms Allen is so hung up on what might happen, then I suggest she put her mind to rest and have her tubes tied. That way she can stop worrying about her own possibilities and perhaps stop writing such nonsensical generalities that every unwanted pregnancy results in a child that is a loser at birth. What a bunch of hogwash. T. C. Wheeler
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (12/06/84)
Seems I boo-booed with the name of the person who wrote the article about aborting every child who might possibly have a problem after birth. I did not read the header very close and the person who posted the article made it sound as if his wife was named Ms Allen, therefore I assumed that this was another Ms Allen. Now I find that the poster was refering to Liz Allen, a person with whom I am in complete agreement. Sorry to have confused people and double that for Liz. I make no apology to whoever Alex (or something) or his wife are. T. C. Wheeler