kin@laidbak.UUCP (Kin Wong) (08/30/84)
For those who argue that abortion is equivalent to murder, I can only say that I disagree. I disagree because I do not think that a fetus or a fertilized ovum is the same as a human being (a person ?). It is in the process of becoming a human being, but not yet. A tadpole is in the process of becoming a frog, but it is not yet a frog. Of course as the process progresses, it becomes more and more like a human, thus a fetus that is in the third trimester is certainly more like a human than one that is in the second trimester, which in turn is more like a human than a fertilized egg of say, just 2 (or 4 or 8 ..) cells. One may argue that perhaps abortion should not be permitted if the fetus is more than 6 or 7 months old because: 1) it's too much like a human; 2) it may well survive outside the mothers womb; and 3) abortion at such a late stage is difficult and may be harmful to the woman's health. But I cannot agree with the view that abortion == murder, and therfore the woman should be tried for murder (and be hanged or whatever the current popular punishment for murder is). For those of you who maintain that abortion == murder, but then say that the woman should not be tried for murder, please justify. Furthermore, all the anger that I see from the anti-abortion group, about pro-choice people are condoning murder , to the likening of Hitler's murdering of Jews is going too far, I can only attribute that to their eagerness of grouping (or failure to recognize) totally different issues. Such analogies are like (in fact, worse than) saying that if you read Playboy you must be for child-pornography, or that if you are against child-porn you must support legislation to ban magazines like Playboy and all R and X rated movies! (Further arguments on these should go to net.politics or whatever) But perhaps such tactics is only natural given the unpersuasive arguments that the anti-abortionists have. Personally I wonder how many of the anti-abortionists are also those who support school-prayers, creation "science",etc,who are also generally claiming that they want the government off the peoples backs( flames to net.politics)! I suspect all these noise about fetus rights are mere disguise for some people to impose their morals and beliefs on others. (For those who are totally sincere on fetus rights -- well I respect your view, but I don't agree with it). But I am digressing. There can be many reasons for abortions, one is of course, family planning, ie the woman simply do not want to have a child, and have got pregnant through stupidity, ignorance, failure of contraceptives, allergic to contraceptives, rape, non-use of contraceptives because the Pope say so, etc. But there are other reasons too, like if the fetus is diagnosed to be malformed (among some parents who have a high risk due to their genetics, many of them would use abortion to try for a second, third, or fourth time to get a non-malformed baby, many would not have the courage to try for a second time if they have had a malformed one), other reasons include (non-exhaustively) harm to the mother's health, or if the pregnant woman has V.D. and the fetus is likely to be afflicted, etc. Given that the responsibility of carrying the fetus till birth (and generally beyond) lies so much on the woman (more still if she is single), I can't see why the choice of abortion should not be given to her. Finally, to reduce abortions, I suggest the following steps, which I am sure will succeed in reducing abortions. For all you anti-abortionists who have given me the impression that you are of strong-moral-fiber, I see no reasons why you would disagree to show off your saintlyness: 1) All anti-abortionists be registered, i.e. name, address, phone number taken down by some BUREAUCRATS. 2) Whenever an unwanted baby is born (i.e. the mother had wanted an abortion, but changed her mind due to pressures from anti-abortionists telling her that she is immoral, evil, a murderer, deserve time in purgatory, etc,etc), a male be randomly selected from the anti-abortionists list, who will have to adopt the baby whether he likes it or not (it may be unhealthy, deformed or even (shudder) not of a color to his liking,etc) 3)Whenever a pregnant woman want an abortion, a female of child-bearing age be again randomly selected from the same list, who will have the fetus transplanted into her womb, she would now have the responsibility that she so firmly believe others should adhere to. This step should perhaps only be implemented if such medical technology is easily available, since otherwise the transplanted fetus may have little chance of surviving, thus depriving the noble lady of her grandiose success. 4) Finally, if technology and money ($$$) permits, whenever a woman wants an abortion, and the list mentioned above have dwindled to almost zero length (or if all members in the list have been chosen a dozen times), the fetus should be removed from the woman's womb and be placed in some (hi-tech?) fetus-bank, where the fetus, through the wonders of modern science (creation "scientists", contribute, show your stuff!), will grow and develop into a full grown baby, and be adopted by some virtuous member of the above mentioned list. Now all of these would have to be done at the taxpayers' expense of course, since otherwise the poor(where perhaps the largest number of abortions occur? Data anyone?) would not be able to bestow upon them noble folks the saintly responsibilities of fetus bearing and child rearing. So, now perhaps all you anti-abortionists-cum-conservatives, who feel (OH!) so deeeeply about someone elses' aborted fetuses, and yet complain about too much of your tax money being spent on welfare,etc would reconsider? Perhaps now you prefer the CHOICE of refusing to adopt? Anyone for rights of frozen embryos?? Don't embryos have the right not to be subjected to such torture, er, I mean, extreme cold?? Common Sense Propaganda by kin wong (..ihnp4!iwlc8!klw, ..laidbak!kin)
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/31/84)
I think Kin Wong is arguing against a "straw man".
I've always been bothered with the way some call abortionists
and women who get abortions, "murders". In my mind a murderer
is one who kills someone they know is another human being. I
do, however, think that abortion is the killing of a human being.
The root of the problem is not that women are murdering those
they know to be humans, but that they do not value the fetus
as a human. To call them murderers is to imply that they are
fully aware of what they are really doing. The majority obviously
are not, though many seem unwilling to be convinced to the
contrary.
--
Paul Dubuc {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd
The true light that enlightens every one was coming
into the world... (John 1:9)hawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick) (09/05/84)
> For those of you who maintain that >abortion == murder, but then say that the woman should not be tried for >murder, please justify. Both the women and the doctor should be prosecuted. As it is pre-meditated, it should probably be treated as murder in the first degree. >Furthermore, all the anger that I see from the anti-abortion >group, about pro-choice people are condoning murder *IF* the fetus is a human being, what else would you call it. > But perhaps such tactics is >only natural given the unpersuasive arguments that the anti-abortionists >have. Speaking of strongly persuasive arguments . . . >Personally I wonder how many of the anti-abortionists are also >those who support school-prayers, creation "science",etc,who are also >generally claiming that they want the government off the peoples backs( >flames to net.politics)! I'm not. And if I were, so what? >I suspect all these noise about fetus rights >are mere disguise for some people to impose their morals and beliefs >on others. (For those who are totally sincere on fetus rights -- well >I respect your view, but I don't agree with it). But I am digressing. I really can't see someone supporting a cause for no other reason than to inflict their beliefs. I will, however, take a stand against those who oppose abortion simply because they've been told to without giveing the matter serious thought. >But there are other reasons >too, like if the fetus is diagnosed to be malformed (among some parents >who have a high risk due to their genetics, many of them would use >abortion to try for a second, third, or fourth time to get a non-malformed >baby, many would not have the courage to try for a second time if >they have had a malformed one), Are you saying that malformed babies are less valuable, or that if they are people they should have less rights? -- rick (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC) [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk