varne@druxu.UUCP (VarnetEJ) (10/12/84)
To all concerned and thinking persons on this net:
I don't normally do this, but after last nights debate
I felt I have to speak out somewhere!
Facts presented and not disputed by the Democrat
1. 15,000,000 lives lost due to abortion
since 1973!!!!!
2. 1,500,000 lives lost due to abortion
since the beginning of 1984!!
Now do any of you so called pro-choice advocates think that
all off these conceptions were caused by rape and incest???
I suggest that abortion is a form of birth control for a
lot of people!! What the hell if I get pregnant the Government
will pay to get rid of the little helpless baby that can't protest
or vote Republican!
I sure would like to know how the Democrats and you pro-choice
advocates justify all of this birth control via murder of
helpless people.
I know I'm just talking into the wind! Your not going to change,
I just hope there is something like reincarnation and all you
pro choice advocates are the first to be aborted-wouldn't that
be funny??
A very appalled
ED. VARNETtwiss@stolaf.UUCP (Thomas S. Twiss) (10/13/84)
All right, cool down. I admit that those stats were staggering (What
was your source again? - I missed the debate ). But I must point out
that you are quoting objective facts but positing a subjective conclusion.
Using that statement to say that millions of innocent people are being
killed is not a logical progression. The question of when life begins
is completely independent of the stats you quote. Don't use one to support
the other. But anyway, what is your position? Do you think that all
abortion should be erradicated because of your cases, or should
the administration of those abortions simply be changed yet kept? What are
you trying to say? You've become very emotional but only succeeded in
forming a logical contradiction, and failing to support a position.
What are you saying?
--
Tom Twiss @ St. Olaf College
{decvax|ihnp4}!stolaf!twiss
"If the Paradox and the Reason come together in a mutual understanding
of their unlikeliness their encounter will be happy..."
-Soren Kierkegaardkjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (10/18/84)
[Improve the world -- Eat red herring!] > To all concerned and thinking persons on this net: > I don't normally do this, but after last nights debate > I felt I have to speak out somewhere! > Facts presented and not disputed by the Democrat If it is indeed a *fact* (and therefore unquestionably true) how does one go about disputing it? > 1. 15,000,000 lives lost due to abortion > since 1973!!!!! > 2. 1,500,000 lives lost due to abortion > since the beginning of 1984!! As opposed to ~15 million lives mangled due to the unavailability of abortion? <Switching to the commentary of my girlfriend...> Are you aware, sir, that in countries where abortion is illegal, many thousands of women die or are permanently maimed each year from botched abortions? You seem to think that the life of the fetus is of higher value than that of its mother. This same justification was used for many years to prefer the life of the child over that of the mother in cases where both their lives were endangered in childbirth. Another variation on the theme was the doctors' leaving of the decision on whose life to spare to the father of the child or the woman's husband, or her legal guardian. No one asked the woman whether she wanted to live or die. I like to think that we live in a more enlightened age.... But many people such as yourself stick to the old ideas which brought so much misery to so many. Abortion is never a decision which is made lightly. A call to any agency which provides pregnancy testing services or problem preg- nancy referral services will show that people providing abortion services want patients to be informed. All options are discussed, psychological help is provided, and women are en- couraged to think about it in the light of their own personal values. If a woman should run into a service which seems to be pressing her into abortion, one would hope that she would have the intelligence to go somewhere else; but, unfortunately, many are not and are thus exploited by unscrupulous quacks who could not care less for her health. The anti-choice folks are to be applauded for railling against this travesty; by doing so, they insure that women receive care only from honest, caring, and reputable professionals. The tragedy is that, if abortion is once again made illegal, the only practitioners who will survive are the back-alley quacks and the unscrupulous money-grubbers who will kill women daily, or bleed them of their money (only rich women were able to get SAFE abortions when abortions were illegal). I finish with a wish to you on the order of your wish to us: May you be reincarnated as a desperate woman who gets a back-alley abortion and lives to tell about it. (At least, if we are reincarnated as fetuses who are to be aborted, we will never know the difference.) AJA <Replies may be sent via me (see below).> > Now do any of you so called pro-choice advocates think that > all off these conceptions were caused by rape and incest??? No. Why is that relevant? > I suggest that abortion is a form of birth control for a > lot of people!! Really? On what basis? > What the hell if I get pregnant the Government > will pay to get rid of the little helpless baby that can't protest > or vote Republican! No, I believe that in most cases the government *will not* pay for abortion on demand. > > I sure would like to know how the Democrats and you pro-choice > advocates justify all of this birth control via murder of > helpless people. I'd like to know how all of you anti-choice people justify enslaving women by making them bear unwanted children! > I know I'm just talking into the wind! Gee, I thought you were just talking into the network... :-) > Your not going to change, > I just hope there is something like reincarnation and all you > pro choice advocates are the first to be aborted-wouldn't that > be funny?? > A very appalled > ED. VARNET I'm appalled that you wish on people the very thing that you are attempting to prevent! <Comments again from AJA.> I am very glad that you are appalled. Please do something with all that energy and work toward making available more effective and safe birth control for more women AND men. Many people would like to take even the option of PREVENTING unwanted conceptions away from people. I sincerely hope that your personal value judgments do not include leaving every act of sexual intercourse open to conception. Just remember... YOU will not ever become pregnant (if I may assume your gender from your signature; please forgive me if I assumed wrongly), so you will never have to make any decision of that kind. Think about it. -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (10/19/84)
> To all concerned and thinking persons on this net: > I don't normally do this, but after last nights debate > I felt I have to speak out somewhere! > Facts presented and not disputed by the Democrat > 1. 15,000,000 lives lost due to abortion > since 1973!!!!! > 2. 1,500,000 lives lost due to abortion > since the beginning of 1984!! > Now do any of you so called pro-choice advocates think that > all off these conceptions were caused by rape and incest??? No, nobody claimed they were, but some probably were, so what? > > I suggest that abortion is a form of birth control for a > lot of people!! What the hell if I get pregnant the Government > will pay to get rid of the little helpless baby that can't protest > or vote Republican! But on the other hand, they will also lose their opportunity to vote Democrat! You should be happy we are getting abortions. If we get enough of them, we will probably go extinct and then there wouldn't be ANY abortion problem anymore! > > I sure would like to know how the Democrats and you pro-choice > advocates justify all of this birth control via murder of > helpless people. > > I know I'm just talking into the wind! Your not going to change, > I just hope there is something like reincarnation and all you > pro choice advocates are the first to be aborted-wouldn't that > be funny?? > A very appalled > ED. VARNET > Well, if reincarnation exists, then who cares whether we'll get aborted first? I'm sure that if we get to have more than one life, there's no limit on the number of lives we get. Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
emh@bonnie.UUCP (Edward M. Hummel) (10/19/84)
<> Hmmmmmm....... I wonder....do Democrats have more abortions than Republicans? I suspect that they do. I also suspect that if abortions become illegal there might be more Republicans having abortions than Democrats. Ed Hummel
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (10/19/84)
** > I just hope there is something like reincarnation and all you > pro choice advocates are the first to be aborted-wouldn't that > be funny?? > A very appalled > ED. VARNET Well, if there is and I get aborted, I will just get reincarnated again anyway won't I? What's the big deal? -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 ihnp4!pesnta -\ fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny ucbvax!twg -/
David Smallberg <das@ucla-cs.ARPA> <das> (10/20/84)
... >> I suggest that abortion is a form of birth control for a >> lot of people!! > Really? On what basis? Check out the Soviet Union, Japan, and China, for example. In the first two, at least, the Pill is illegal (their versions of the FDA don't like the side effects for many women), and I think some other birth control methods are not used as much as here. I've read that the incidence of abortion in those countries is fairly high, and that it IS in fact regarded as one method of birth control. >> I suggest that abortion is a form of birth control for a >> lot of people!! So what? I've asked this before, but no one else seems to know either: What are the abortion attitudes of non-Christian cultures, such as Japan or China? How many of the emotional arguments presented in net.abortion would be viewed as irrelevant? The quoted statement, for example, is apparently supposed to shock people into thinking "Really! That's awful!"; would a Japanese say "Yes, that's obvious. I don't understand why you put in the double exclamation points, though."? -- David Smallberg, das@ucla-cs.ARPA, {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!das
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (10/23/84)
For those who are interested, in China today, abortion IS an accepted method of birth control. First, chinese families are now restricted to one child each. This is true. The one child cannot be concieved without state approval. This is true. A family must apply for approval before the woman may become pregnant. This is true. IF the woman becomes pregnant without state approval, she may be coerced into having an abortion. The pressure is in the form of losing one's job and all forms of state support. Records are kept on every woman by the local communist party leader and the women are watched very closely. The system is not popular as the Chinese love children just as much as any culture, perhaps even more. Forced abortion by the government is very unpopular among the populace. They too do not agree with this method of birth control, but what do you do if your livelyhood is going to be cut off? Is this the next step here in our culture? In my opinion, some of the women who have been advocating unlimited abortion on this net are nothing more than selfish, self-centered, snot-nosed bitches. They all have well paid jobs. Their partners most likely have the same. Their only aim in life seems to be self gratification and to hell with anything that gets in their way. Their concern isn't for the poor or disadvantaged. They only want abortion to be available to them so that they can continue to pursue hedonistic impulses. Responsibility is a dirty word in their vocabulary. Love of life is only a phrase that pertains to them and their narcistic attitudes. You women know who you are. Don't bother to get up on your hobby horses and lecture about rape and incest. The abortions attributed to these two categories is miniscule and the numbers support this. You women know damn well that the only reason you support abortion is so you can use it as a birth control method. This is WRONG. As for the men who will undoubtably reply to this article, stick your terminal up your nose. Abortion for birth control is murder, plain and simple. All of those arguments about what or who is alive or human are nothing more than a bunch of claptrap. 1.5 million deaths a year is sick. T. C. Wheeler
cdshaw@watmath.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (10/24/84)
[I was walking down the street one day, when SUDDENLY, my baloney melted !]
Q: What's the diff. between "TC Wheeler's" views and the Pyramids ??
A: None: They're both cast in stone !!
(Actually, it's a good thing "TC Wheeler" put that on the net, 'cause I now
an excellent example of a rabid anti-abortionist right at hand !! I can't
believe he actually had the stupidity to rant his views in public !!! )
Surprisingly, this incompetent apologist for crypto-fascist morals screwed
up. TCW forgot to note that women shouldn't be working in the computer field.
TCW also neglected to say that Ferraro is the Anti-Christ, and that all women
on the net who advocate abortion are sleazy, no-good pinko sluts!! What's
more, TCW even forgot to bring in the obligatory bit about tents and property
and barbed wire and birth control and faulty analogies and bent, folded, and
spindled syllogisms...... TCW even missed the primo spiffy indentation
other people's quotes, complete with ">" characters and a total
misinterpretation of the quoted person's views !!!!!!!!!!!
...But I digress....
( :-) :-) :-) :-) ...as :-) approaches infinity )
Seriously, when is somebody on the net going to post the source for the
program "stf" (STupidity Filter) in net.sources (mod.sources ?). I'm sure I
could use it to pipe my news through !! This program would greatly reduce the
amount of news reading I have to do every day !
Signing off 'cause the fool quotient is too high..
I remain,
CD Shawcdshaw@watmath.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (10/24/84)
"TC Wheeler's" article was dumb.
andrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP (10/24/84)
Are you saying tat since these other cultures may not view it as being so bad, it isn't? What if another culture thinks murder is ok, or women are property, does that make either of these correct? Brad Andrews
hawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick) (10/25/84)
>Are you aware, sir, that in countries where abortion is illegal, >many thousands of women die or are permanently maimed each year >from botched abortions? Are you aware, maam, that in countries where abortion is illegal, many millions of fetuses die (with a couple maimed) each year from successful abortions. >You seem to think that the life of the fetus is of higher value >than that of its mother. And you seem to think that the life of the fetus is of less value than the conveinence of the mother. rick
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (10/26/84)
Why doesn't Shaw address the issue instead of making scurilous remarks?? What's the matter fella, or gal, whichever, do you realize I might have a point but just can't bring yourself to agree? Abortion used as birth control by those who have the ability and finances to have children is murder. They have no excuse. Wanting to get through grad school is one of the poorest I've seen so far. Rave on oh wise ones. You have to live with your concsience, not me. T. C. Wheeler
jtc78@ihuxm.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) (10/26/84)
> > As for the men who will undoubtably reply to this article, > stick your terminal up your nose. Abortion for birth control > is murder, plain and simple. All of those arguments about > what or who is alive or human are nothing more than a bunch > of claptrap. 1.5 million deaths a year is sick. > T. C. Wheeler I want to share a truly wonderful moment with everybody. While some people might have become upset and begun composing rebuttals halfway through T.C. Wheeler's article I retained enough composure to have a good laugh at the end where he mentions 1.5 million deaths. There can be no doubts now about death before birth - it exists, plain and SIMPLE! Please stick that terminal up my nose now, I deserve that as I am replying to T.C. Wheeler's article. Seriously, no intention to sound insulting, but "death before birth" sounds absolutely absurd to me. Please comment if you disagree. Of course, my disagreement with Wheeler is more then phraseological, but his presentation has VERY little to do with his powerful conclusion. In conclusion a line from NBC's SNL news item describing medical efforts that resulted in a successful delivery of a Third World mother's baby: "both mother and child are starving comfortably." Mike Cherepov (aka Musing)
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (10/26/84)
-- >> In my opinion, some of the women who have been advocating >> unlimited abortion on this net are nothing more than selfish, >> self-centered, snot-nosed bitches. They all have well paid jobs. >> Their partners most likely have the same. Their only aim in >> life seems to be self gratification and to hell with anything >> that gets in their way. Their concern isn't for the poor or >> disadvantaged. They only want abortion to be available to >> them so that they can continue to pursue hedonistic impulses. >> Responsibility is a dirty word in their vocabulary. Love >> of life is only a phrase that pertains to them and their >> narcistic attitudes. You women know who you are. Don't bother >> to get up on your hobby horses and lecture about rape and >> incest. The abortions attributed to these two categories >> is miniscule and the numbers support this. You women know >> damn well that the only reason you support abortion is so >> you can use it as a birth control method. This is WRONG. >> As for the men who will undoubtably reply to this article, >> stick your terminal up your nose. Abortion for birth control >> is murder, plain and simple. All of those arguments about >> what or who is alive or human are nothing more than a bunch >> of claptrap. 1.5 million deaths a year is sick. >> T. C. Wheeler One is tempted to respond in kind, viz: Guys like TC make you wish abortion had been legal for a lot longer, *BUT* one is too busy trying to stick one's TVI950 up one's nostrils. I'll let the rampant misogyny pass, too. There really is some middle ground, you know. First, the number of abortions due to rape and incest may be small, but rapes themselves and sexual abuse due to incest are all too common. Thus, the possibility of pregnancy due to sexual abuse is very real, and no woman should have to fear the consequences of such a pregancy on top of the crime. TC is much too macho a stud to comprehend this fear, or else he's too busy knocking up his girlfriends to care. OK, OK, sorry I got carried away there. Anyway, if it happens so rarely, why not keep such abortions legal? It's pretty clear that human embryos during the 1st trimester are little more than masses of jelly. They don't look at all like those cute pictures clutched like portraits of the Ayatollah by anti-abortion's fanatical street gangs. A 1st trimester embryo is more like a teratoma (look it up, TC) than anything else. What about rights for teratomas? Or sperm? Of course, there's no proscription of abortion in the Bible, and up through the 19th Century, Church doctrine held (from Aristotle, I think), that a soul took 40 days to develop--80 for a female, wouldn't you know--so abortion during that time was not the taking of a human life. Therefore, to call abortion, at least during the first few months, murder is to make a quite arbitrary and capricious statement, both philosophically and scientifically. What is called for most of all is tolerance. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 25 Oct 84 [4 Brumaire An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
andrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP (10/26/84)
The issue of death before birth all depends on when you believe life begins. For me, and as I believe it is, birth is just a milestone in a childs true life, he or she is alive before the physical birth. Therefore, there can be many murders before birth. Brad
betsy@dartvax.UUCP (Betsy Hanes Perry) (10/26/84)
> > In my opinion, some of the women who have been advocating > unlimited abortion on this net are nothing more than selfish, > self-centered, snot-nosed bitches. They all have well paid jobs. > Their partners most likely have the same. Their only aim in > life seems to be self gratification and to hell with anything > that gets in their way. Their concern isn't for the poor or > disadvantaged. They only want abortion to be available to > them so that they can continue to pursue hedonistic impulses. > > All of those arguments about > what or who is alive or human are nothing more than a bunch > of claptrap. 1.5 million deaths a year is sick. > T. C. Wheeler Unlike Mr. Wheeler, I can't claim to speak for all the pro-choice women. I can speak for myself. Candidly, I don't *need* liberal abortion laws; I use a reliable (as reliable as they get) contraceptive, and I'm in a financial state to support an unexpected child. I have never had an abortion in my life, and I sincerely hope never to do so. I'm pro-choice for the same reasons that I'm pro-freedom-of-speech; because I believe that freedom of choice is a *good thing*. I believe that the family involved should decide for themselves if aborting a fetus is their best remedy. I know people whose lives have been wrecked by unwanted children; I know an unwanted child who says it would have been better had she never been born. The sufferings of the already-living seem more important to me than the (possible) sufferings of the pre-born. (No, I don't believe that a fetus is the same as a child;I also don't believe that an acorn is the same as an oak tree. So an analogy with infanticide doesn't hold.) May I suggest that postings which say "I'm right and you're wrong, so there's no point in arguing" generate more heat than light? -- Betsy Perry UUCP: {decvax|linus|cornell}!dartvax!betsy CSNET: betsy@dartmouth ARPA: betsy%dartmouth@csnet-relay
andrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP (10/28/84)
believe it is after 8 weeks that a child is all that he will be, except for size. They are more than just blobs of jelly, what does a blob of jelly look like anyway? Are you just a blob of jelly. Also, why compound the violation of rape or insest with the murder of someone inocent. Brad Andrews
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (10/30/84)
[I'm posting this response to hawk@oliven for my girlfriend. -- KJM] >>Are you aware, sir, that in countries where abortion is illegal, >>many thousands of women die or are permanently maimed each year >>from botched abortions? > >Are you aware, maam, that in countries where abortion is illegal, >many millions of fetuses die (with a couple maimed) each year >from successful abortions. Reductio ad absurdum. >>You seem to think that the life of the fetus is of higher value >>than that of its mother. > >And you seem to think that the life of the fetus is of less value than the >conveinence of the mother. > >rick Wise up, abortions are *never* convenient for anyone. Even in the East European countries which have a very high abortion rate, it is because birth control technology is inadequate. Chinese women have no choice as to how many children they can bear and must undergo forced abortion. This is as tragic as the situation of the women who cannot undergo an abortion even if they need one because of its illegality. The women of East Europe probably do not enjoy having an abortion any more than American or Western European women do. What this is all about is choice: individual control over one's own body. A fetus is a part of the woman's body, pure and simple, until such time as it can carry on biological processes on its own. A six-month fetus can. An eight-week fetus could never do so (until such time as we have in vitro gestation). The women in America who opt for abortion make a *conscious, considered, and painful* choice. Many are teenagers whose bodies are not mature enough to carry the fetus to term. Even if it were possible for them to do so, the child would probably be unhealthy (unless the girl got good prenatal care, which is unlikely in many cases). The girl stands an excellent chance of dying in childbirth also. Other women have an abortion because they simply cannot support another child. Not all of these women are single, and not all of them have careers or healthy incomes. (If T. C. Wheeler can get personal, so can I!!!) It is pointless, however, to argue with a person who (ostensibly) has made up his mind as to what women should do and what they should be. There have been people like you around since the bishops in the Church (several centuries ago) debated whether women had, or had not a soul. This same sort of people blame women for seducing men, yet ogle the girls on the street and pinch the secretaries on the behind. Leave the question of abortion to be decided by women, for you neither have the ability to have a child, nor will you ever incur the risk to life or livelihood because of an unwanted pregnancy. (Of course, you may flame me at the net address below.) AJA -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
David Smallberg <das@ucla-cs.ARPA> <das> (10/31/84)
... > 1.5 million deaths a year is sick. > T. C. Wheeler But not so sick that you're doing everything you can to stop it, eh? Are you spending every extra minute and dollar you have on fighting abortion, or world hunger, which kills a lot more people? You're not? Hmm, sounds like you're trading your convenience for someone else's life -- after all, you could save at least a few starving children from death. Why are anti-abortionists so upset about someone else choosing her "convenience" over an unborn child's life when they choose their own convenience over a born child's life? -- David Smallberg, das@ucla-cs.ARPA, {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!das
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (10/31/84)
-- >> Why doesn't Shaw address the issue instead of making >> scurilous remarks?? What's the matter fella, or gal, >> whichever, do you realize I might have a point but >> just can't bring yourself to agree? Your original posting, TC, took 1st prize in the "scurilous remarks" dept. Something about "snot-nosed bitches" or something. I think Shaw's calling your posting (not you, incidentally) "dumb" was a model of toleration you'd do well to imitate. >> Abortion used as birth control by those who have the >> ability and finances to have children is murder. They >> have no excuse. Wanting to get through grad school is >> one of the poorest I've seen so far. Rave on oh wise >> ones. You have to live with your concsience, not me. >> T. C. Wheeler Your bad grammar underscores the very point--I have to live in a world that contains both my conscience *AND* you. And you, in a world with both your conscience and me. Tolerance. Last call for tolerance. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 30 Oct 84 [9 Brumaire An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** *** <--PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS!
andrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP (10/31/84)
Why could not one of these people who could/would not raise children have put the child up for adoption? There are many young couples waiting to adopt a baby. This is a far better solution than killing the child because of someone's "mistake". Brad Andrews
butch@drutx.UUCP (11/01/84)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houxe.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Denver Mods 4/2/84) 6/24/83; site drutx.UUCP
Message-ID: <1351@drutx.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Oct-84 16:20:57 EST
>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 10
One thing that I've noticed on this news group is that most of the
pro-life advocates are male. It's easy for them to say that
abortion is murder since they can't have an unwanted pregnancy. I
wonder if they would have the same attitudes if they were female? I
would be interested in hearing more females breach this subject on
the net.
regards,
S. Freemanwed@druxx.UUCP (11/01/84)
Assuming 15000000 since 1973 is a fairly accurate number I would agree that abortion is being used as a method of birth control. That's an average of 3736 a day, EVERY day since 1973. Or 75 EVERY day for EVERY state. Are there this many babies born everday? I have no statistics. I've often wondered why any male would want to have anything to do with a person who has such little regard for human life, let alone have sexual intercourse with them. Is this where the word "whipped" comes in? I sometimes get tired of the rape/incest arguments as applied to the abortion issue. 3736 EVERY DAY for 11 years. COME ON! How many of these women (married?) had "secret" abortions to cover up the result of a "secret" affair? How many of these women had abortions because they didn't know who the father was? How many women have had abortions because a baby would be an inconvenience to their selfish life style? How many men support abortion because a baby would be an inconvenience to their selfish life style? Could it be that many males support pro-choice to avoid their own responsibilities should their partner conceive? Should males be held responsible financially and/or emotionally for a baby that is born when the same male has no decision making rights as far as abortion is concerned? How many times have women used conception to make a "catch" and when their partner balks resort to abortion? This could go on and on I suppose. In my opinion to use a human life or dispose of a human life for any of these reasons is sickening. If you've gotton my point I really don't care what you may think of my grammer, so flame on. "life is but a dream" "it's what you make it" "always try to give" "don't ever take it"
andrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP (11/03/84)
I would venture to say that the reason that the "majority" of the pro-life here are male is because the majority of computer users are male, although this is changing. This is not meant to put anyone down, but just state some facts. I do know of many females who are opposed to abortion. Also, the fact that I don't happened to be plagued by desires to rape someone does not mean that I cannot say that rape is wrong. In the same line, the fact that I am a male and not a female does not make my realization that abortion is murder any less valid. Brad Andrews
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (11/06/84)
> ......In the same line, >the fact that I am a male and not a female does not make my realization >that abortion is murder any less valid. > Brad Andrews Webster defines MURDER as: 1) To kill a person esp. with malice aforethought. 2) To kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice. 3) To slaughter wantonly. 4) To put and end to. First we must decide which definition we are talking about. I propose that we consider 1) and 2) as being indistinguishable. 'Unlawfully' could be a key word, but that may be what we're trying to determine. I don't think 3) applies, the key word is probably 'wantonly'. And 4) is so general, I'm sure we're all guilty of this one in some context (did you finish your breakfast?). Using 1) and or 2): Webster defines KILL as: 1) To deprive of life. DEPRIVE as: 1) To take something away from. 2) To withold something from. and LIFE as: 1) The quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body. 2) A principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings 3) The sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual. If we pick Deprive(1) we may then have to determine if that something exists that can be taken away. On the other hand, if we pick Deprive(2) that determination is not required. When we examine LIFE, things get even more muddy, 'vital and functional' 'distinctive quality' etc.. What is clear is that it is UNCLEAR. The definition of MURDER is based on the definition of LIFE and whether or not one thinks that LIFE exists in the (prospectively) murdered body. To bandy the word MURDER about like a flag for some holy cause says nothing. According to some peoples definitions, abortion is murder. According to other peoples definitons, it is not. To others still, the previously mentioned key word 'unlawfully' may be the issue. Within these discussions we can hardly commuinicate if we don't speak the same language. And in fact, it seems to be that the very definition of the language is what we're arguing. Perhaps we should confine these discussions to what we think LIFE is and is not, or what 'unlawful' is and is not, as this will determine whether MURDER is the correct word. Keith Doyle {ucbvax,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
hawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick) (11/08/84)
> A fetus is a part of the woman's >body, pure and simple, until such time as it can carry on biological >processes on its own. This is where we depart. I find the fetus to be a human being of its own, with all rights pertaining thereto. Not trying to protect it would be negligence and hypocrasy on my part, just as not speaking out against slavery, rape, murder, or child abuse would be. As far as I'm concerned, the issue is political, not moral. Opposition to abortion should not be because "it's wrong to do it" but because "the fetus is a human being, and has its own rights." (note: opposing it because "it's wrong because the fetus is a human" falls into the second category.) The first case is attempting to inflict your beliefs on someone else; the second is trying to protect the rights of an innocent and helpless party. rick
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (11/09/84)
Nitpicking the semantics is not a valid argument for abortion. Justifying abortion through the meaning of words does not stop the 1.5 million deaths every year. I will have more to say on the subject soon. T. C. Wheeler
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (11/18/84)
-- References: <1038@ut-ngp.UUCP> <667@oliven.UUCP> <1052@ut-ngp.UUCP>, <706@oliven.UUCP> -- [somebody said] > A fetus is a part of the woman's >body, pure and simple, until such time as it can carry on biological >processes on its own. [Rick says] >> This is where we depart. I find the fetus to be a human being of its >> own, with all rights pertaining thereto... >> rick Yes, let's talk about rights of fetuses--citizenship, for example. Any fetus conceived on U S Territory should be a US citizen. A fetus, as a citizen, then has the right to civil suit (well, someone would have to do it for him/her/it) *and* to be sued (well, as a minor, mom and dad will have to stand in). Think of all the lawyers who could get rich from the case of the fetus that doesn't want to be born. (Well, would you?) Or one twin embryo suing the other. Why not? Of course, any fetus would have to count as a person in any census or official population estimate, since that's how representatives are apportioned. What's more, fetus abuse would then become at least as punishable as pet abuse. That means that the mom-to-be, that's a *forced* mom-to-be, can't drink, smoke, or follow a less-than-proper diet. Better tie her down for 9 months and feed her intravenously. Rights for eggs, indeed. Hey, if conception is everything, how come all you "born-agains" don't call yourself "conceived-agains"? -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 12 Nov 84 [22 Brumaire An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***