kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (11/09/84)
[wed@druxx] >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. Where's the beef? Why are you so indignant about the numbers? I thought the abortion question was a matter of principle. >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've wondered for a long time why any woman would have anything to do with any man who would force her to bear his child! >I sometimes get tired of the rape/incest arguments as applied to the >abortion issue. 3736 EVERY DAY for 11 years. COME ON! Are YOU willing to feed 3736 new mouths each day? Can you even accomplish this feat?! >How many of these women (married?) had "secret" abortions to cover up the >result of a "secret" affair? What difference does it make? > How many of these women had abortions because >they didn't know who the father was? Who cares? > 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? Why do you think you should be able to tell people what to do with their resources, so long as they harm no one? (Refusing aid, even to an unborn child, is *NOT* the same as actively doing harm!) What is it that binds people to engage in an unselfish lifestyle, and why is it valid? >Could it be that many males support pro-choice to avoid their own >responsibilities should their partner conceive? Why is abortion irresponsible? > 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? Yes. The man should be held financially responsible for half of the cost, either of the birth and subsequent care, or of the abortion; whichever the woman chooses. >How many times have women used conception to make a "catch" and when their >partner balks resort to abortion? Hmm, we're still in the bad old days, are we, when women had to "make catches"? ACK! Your very attitude towards women (as being subhuman man-traps) disqualifies you for deciding questions which concern them so closely. (Yes, if you assume the opposite attitude, it is obvious that women, like any other sentient beings, should have control of their own bodies. "We hold these truths to be self-evident...") > This could go on and on I suppose. Fortunately for my supply of barf bags, you chose to stop. -:) >In my opinion to use a human life or dispose of a human life for any of >these reasons is sickening. Is not to comandeer a woman's body, for whatever purpose, to "use a human life"? Is it not therefore equally sickening to you? Oh, I forgot. You don't consider women to be human. :-) Sorry. > If you've gotton my point I really don't >care what you may think of my grammer, so flame on. I don't give a flying * about your grammar. On the other hand, I am disgusted and appalled by your apparent willingness to enslave women and turn them into baby factories! >"life is but a dream" >"it's what you make it" >"always try to give" >"don't ever take it" To coerce a person (yes, pregnant women are still people), is to take part of her life. BTW, Since when did people have the inherent right to come into existence, and why? -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]