albrecht@bsdgvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (08/03/84)
[] > From: Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp > Allowing abortion implies freedom, choice to go EITHER way. It > is better to let individuals decide their own life when there is > no better way of deciding their own life for them. The fact is you only want freedom for the woman. What about the unborn child? Someone must protect the rights of the unborn. Self-serving feminists want us to believe that a woman has a right to an abortion. BUNK! The abortionist wants to make the decision for the unborn. I say it's time to stop all the talk and do something. Picket abortion institutes. Sit-in and demonstrate, peacefully. In a case here in Pennsylvania, a group of demonstrator entered an abortion clinic and refused to leave. They tried to counsel with the women inside and explain that there are alternatives to abortion. The owners of the clinic asked for an injunction forbidding the anti-abortion group access to the clinic facilities (including the parking lot where much of the counseling was going on). The judge said that the demonstrators had a right to picket and that they were also allowed to have three people in the parking area to talk to women entering the clinic. One of the facts that came out at the hearing was that these women who go to the clinics are not receiving infor- mation on alternates to abortion. The abortionists shout about a women's freedom to choose, but more often that not don't give any counseling to potential victims about alternates. How can they choose if they don't fully understand the choices?! It's ironic that liberals shout long and hard about the rights of blacks and other minorities and how they marched and demonstrated in the South during the 60's. Where are they today when millions of innocent children are being deprived of their right to life? "Oh," they say "life begins at birth." or "It's the quality of life that is important, not just life itself." Suppose this country decided that all liberals didn't have a life worth living, and they should be put to death by dismemberment. I wonder how they would like that. I think that pro-abortion types should be really concerned about the future of legalized abortion in this country. When President Reagan is elected in November, he will undoubtly have the opportunity to replace some of those pro-abortion Supreme Court justices. Just two more votes and we could reverse the damage done by Roe v. Wade (although we can never bring the unborn back to life). I agree with Franky Schaeffer, this is a time for anger. -- Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. SDG/Devon
brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (08/12/84)
Gr > From: Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp
Gr > Allowing abortion implies freedom, choice to go EITHER way. It
Gr > is better to let individuals decide their own life when there is
Gr > no better way of deciding their own life for them.
Gr
Gr The fact is you only want freedom for the woman. What about the unborn
Gr child? Someone must protect the rights of the unborn. Self-serving
Gr feminists want us to believe that a woman has a right to an abortion.
Gr BUNK! The abortionist wants to make the decision for the unborn.
You assume that the unborn have rights. This is ok only if there is
room for all of them. Passing out more right to life (if you say
the right to life comes from anywhere other than mankind, justify
your position) to more people than you can feed is like printing
more money than you can back.
YOU seem to want to make decisions for women! The situation is
a woman's rights versus an embryo's "rights". To >guarantee< that
one gets her (or your) way, one must go against the other. How do
you decide which way to go? What assumptions are you making?
Why do you make those assumptions?
What are you going to do about the ~70% of fertilized ova that
die naturally?
Gr I say it's time to stop all the talk and do something.
That only works if we agree (when there is a brush fire, for example).
Talking is a way of finding what we >really< want, or at least a
way that upsets each side only half as much.
Gr "Oh," they say "life begins at birth." or "It's the quality of life that
Gr is important, not just life itself." Suppose this country decided that
Gr all liberals didn't have a life worth living, and they should be put to
Gr death by dismemberment. I wonder how they would like that.
That's right, quality counts! How would you like it if you could have
nothing but what is necessary to keep you alive? What if someone
dumped a baby on you and you HAD to care for it? Did you know that
it is a full time job to raise a small child? (and it is not all
compressed into 8 hours in the waking hours)
It looks like just about everyone agrees that already born people
should be allowed to live. NOT everyone agrees that all embryos
should be allowed to live. Obviously there is some sort of
difference. All of us would like to make sure that the difference
persists, if abortion is allowed. That is why we must discuss
the issue and find out what people want, and what we must be
wary of. You seem to have closed your mind. If some people
have different opinions, don't you think that there are >reasons<,
or do you just think that anyone who disagrees with you is
Evil, sent by Satan, and must be fought with the full strength of
God? (Maybe through calm, reasonable discussions, you can find a
flaw in their assumptions or reasoning, instead of spreading hatred.)
Gr I think that pro-abortion types should be really concerned about the future
Gr of legalized abortion in this country.
So do I. It is controversial enough to warrant care, no matter which
way we decide to go. It would be >nice< if nobody even wanted an
abortion.
Gr I agree with Franky Schaeffer, this is a time for anger.
Gr Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp.
Gr SDG/Devon
Anger is only good for fighting. If fighting goes too far,
there will be abortions of full grown adults.
(..owl?)
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianpken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (08/13/84)
-- >> The fact is you only want freedom for the woman. What about the unborn >> child? Someone must protect the rights of the unborn. Self-serving >> feminists want us to believe that a woman has a right to an abortion. >> BUNK! The abortionist wants to make the decision for the unborn. >> I say it's time to stop all the talk and do something. Picket abortion >> institutes. Sit-in and demonstrate, peacefully... >> ...I agree with Franky Schaeffer, this is a time for anger. >> Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. Although the logic of Tom's well-worn argument has holes you could drive a truck through, I understand how he can get so worked up that the issue becomes black-and-white, and all who disagree with him become morons. Thus it was for us early Vietnam War protesters, back when American involvement in SE Asia was popular. So Tom, I understand your righteous anger. You must see Roe vs. Wade the way I saw the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. There is one big difference, of course: I was about to be drafted. You, sir, will never be pregnant. But it's refreshing to see some passion for a change, instead of the interminable angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin fine points of philosophy. So, to help you keep your blood pressure up: I'm pro-choice and I vote. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 12 Aug 84 [25 Thermidor An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (08/13/84)
[] >You assume that the unborn have rights. This is ok only if there is >room for all of them. Who decides if there is "enough room"? And, if the unborn have no rights, by what authority do the born have rights (note: that's us). When arbitrary conditions are used to justify the most basic of rights, the right to live, can other erosions of rights be far behind? Ok, so only children who are wanted and feedable have the right to exist. What about the living, breathing children who fail to qualify? Do you advocate infanticide if conditions are such that the child's social future appears less than ideal? >YOU seem to want to make decisions for women! The situation is >a woman's rights versus an embryo's "rights". To >guarantee< that >one gets her (or your) way, one must go against the other. How do >you decide which way to go? What assumptions are you making? >Why do you make those assumptions? In cases other than rape, the woman made the decision by agreeing to sex without adequate protection. Again, if the woman does, for whatever reason, bear the child, then decides she would rather have aborted it, can she destroy it? What's the difference? As to women's vs. embryos' rights: there is one hell of a difference between the right to avoid the responsibility of a baby, and the right to live! The woman may experience hardship, but that is the natural consequence of her chosen action (ignoring the long lines of couples seeking to adopt). There are numerous avenues which a woman can take to get help in handling this responsibility, and she certainly deserves support and compassion. But killing the resulting person is not part of that. >What are you going to do about the ~70% of fertilized ova that >die naturally? What about them? That is a fact of nature, not the result of a deliberate, conscious act. Let's stick to what we can control. Gr "Oh," they say "life begins at birth." or "It's the quality of life that Gr is important, not just life itself." Suppose this country decided that Gr all liberals didn't have a life worth living, and they should be put to Gr death by dismemberment. I wonder how they would like that. >That's right, quality counts! How would you like it if you could have >nothing but what is necessary to keep you alive? What if someone >dumped a baby on you and you HAD to care for it? Did you know that >it is a full time job to raise a small child? (and it is not all >compressed into 8 hours in the waking hours) It wouldn't be fun. Neither would be raising a wanted baby with a birth defect, caring for an elderly parent, or quite a few things. There is something at issue here, called responsibility. Somehow, many people have developed a notion that if their external circumstances are not to their liking, regardless of what they may have done to cause those circumstances, they are absolved from ethics or moral values in changing those circum- stances. That is the ultimate in indulgent selfishness. "My pleasure comes first; if someone has to die because of it, so what?" I do understand that there is an awesome responsibility here. And I do empathize with the often frightened, worried women faced with a positive pregnancy test. But there are other avenues, adoption being one. And killing a person who happens to be in a pre-birth stage of development is no more justifiable than killing that same person after birth, even if the same reasons for wanting to do so are present. -- [ ] [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] [ ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simard
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (08/15/84)
[ "Just eat it..." -Wierd Al ] >> The fact is you only want freedom for the woman. What about the unborn >> child? Someone must protect the rights of the unborn. Self-serving >> feminists want us to believe that a woman has a right to an abortion. >> BUNK! The abortionist wants to make the decision for the unborn. >> >> ... >> >> I say it's time to stop all the talk and do something. Picket abortion >> institutes. Sit-in and demonstrate, peacefully... >> >> Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. Thus it was for us early Vietnam War protesters, back when American involvement in SE Asia was popular. So Tom, I understand your righteous anger. You must see Roe vs. Wade the way I saw the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. There is one big difference, of course: I was about to be drafted. You, sir, will never be pregnant. ken perlow Ken Perlow has hit the fundamental issue: whether someone who does not participate in a situation has the right to interfere. Men do not get pregnant; thus they should not make rules about pregnancy. Men cannot fault womens' decisions about an experience men can never have. If some man does not like the possibility that a woman may choose to abort his unborn child, he shouldn't allow any possibility of conception. Ken "Smurf-shredder" Montgomery ...{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/17/84)
>Ken Perlow has hit the fundamental issue: whether someone who does not >participate in a situation has the right to interfere. Men do not get >pregnant; thus they should not make rules about pregnancy. Men cannot >fault womens' decisions about an experience men can never have. If >some man does not like the possibility that a woman may choose to abort >his unborn child, he shouldn't allow any possibility of conception. > >Ken "Smurf-shredder" Montgomery >...{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm So what do you guys say to women pro-lifers? I think I can safely say that the great majority of them are women. Anyway I don't think your objections hold up. Were those who were in line for the draft the only ones who had the right to oppose (or support) it? Can't someone be opposed to something on principle? Who else is there to speak for the rights of those in line to be aborted? A good many of them are (very young) women too. -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd The true light that enlightens every one was coming into the world... (John 1:9)
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (08/18/84)
*** It seems to me that historically people get rights when they take them. There is no central authority that hands out rights. An example is women. To this day they do not have the same rights as men. I am old enought to remember the civil rights movement. I remember when I was a child I went to the south and they had separate bathrooms for "colored men" and "men". I thought it was confusing. One thing that did not happen is that one morning all the wwhite people got up and said,"hey, by gosh, we have been denying black people and other minorities rights all this time and, starting today will give everyone equal rights." What really happened was that black people got very very angry, marched on Washington, refused to yield to whites and eventually burned down parts of cities. It became a simple practicle matter. Giving black people part of the rights they were demanding was more cost effective than not.
mat@hou4b.UUCP (08/20/84)
> >> The fact is you only want freedom for the woman. What about the unborn > >> child? Someone must protect the rights of the unborn. Self-serving > >> feminists want us to believe that a woman has a right to an abortion. > >> BUNK! The abortionist wants to make the decision for the unborn. > >> ... > >> I say it's time to stop all the talk and do something. Picket abortion > >> institutes. Sit-in and demonstrate, peacefully... > > Thus it was for us early Vietnam War protesters, back when American > involvement in SE Asia was popular. So Tom, I understand your righteous > anger. You must see Roe vs. Wade the way I saw the Gulf of Tonkin > Resolution. There is one big difference, of course: I was about to be > drafted. You, sir, will never be pregnant. > > ken perlow > >Ken Perlow has hit the fundamental issue: whether someone who does not >participate in a situation has the right to interfere. Men do not get >pregnant; thus they should not make rules about pregnancy. Men cannot >fault womens' decisions about an experience men can never have. If >some man does not like the possibility that a woman may choose to abort >his unborn child, he shouldn't allow any possibility of conception. Ken Perlow has admitted selfish motives for wanting the US to refute its intentions as set forth in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Our constitution calls for trials whose outcome is to be given by an impartial jury. Why? Because they are inherently disinterested. You wouln't want members of the victim's family on the jury, would you? Under this viewpoint, NO woman who was or ever could be fertile could be allowed to decide on the legality/morality of abortions. There is as much a time for disinterested decision-making as there is for letting the person on the spot make the decision. ** Aside: For those who don't believe that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was intended as an act of generosity rather than a power grab, I have a suggestion. Go back and study the Second World War. The cost in life. The peculiar alliance between the USSR and the North Atlantic Allies. The abbrogation of agreements and general high-handed treatment of friends and foe alike by the USSR. The cost to the living that WWII took. (there were over 50 million DOCUMENTED dead. There were almost certainly many undocumentable.) You know, I was born thirteen years after the surrender of Japan. I'm 27 years old now, and that means that since I was born, more than twice as much water as gone under the bridge as did between WWII and my birth. I am no longer in the least surprised, shocked, or even revolted by the foul aftershocks of that war. I read about it when I can, because so much that happened happened as a repercussion. And because everything that we are or know today hung in the balance. Further discussion on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution or the Second World War belongs on net.politics. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) hou5d!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*. (soon hou4b!mat)
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (08/20/84)
-- >> So what do you guys say to women pro-lifers? I think I can safely >> say that the great majority of them are women. I don't think you can safely say that, not without a reference. I'm quite sure that the majority of--and let's call a spade a spade-- anti-abortionists are men. Indeed, it is said that if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. >> Anyway I don't think >> your objections hold up. Were those who were in line for the draft >> the only ones who had the right to oppose (or support) it? >> Can't someone be opposed to something on principle? Sure, it's easy. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 19 Aug 84 [2 Fructidor An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/25/84)
>(Don Steiny) > > It seems to me that historically people get rights >when they take them. There is no central authority >that hands out rights. An example is women. To this day >they do not have the same rights as men. > > I am old enought to remember the civil rights movement. >I remember when I was a child I went to the south and they >had separate bathrooms for "colored men" and "men". I thought >it was confusing. > > One thing that did not happen is that one morning >all the white people got up and said,"hey, by gosh, we have been >denying black people and other minorities rights all this time >and, starting today will give everyone equal rights." What really >happened was that black people got very very angry, marched on >Washington, refused to yield to whites and eventually burned down >parts of cities. It became a simple practical matter. Giving black >people part of the rights they were demanding was more cost effective >than not. True. But it doesn't follow that the only humans who have certain rights are the ones that are able to take them (by force?). People have advocates, you know. Blacks and women have advocates for their rights who are not blacks or women. The unborn humans certainly can't argue for their own rights, but does that mean they should have no advocates who do? -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd The true light that enlightens every one was coming into the world... (John 1:9)