kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (08/21/84)
[ No cute insult for the line eater this time... ] First Mr. Dubuc: > So what do you guys say to women pro-lifers? I think I can safely > say that the great majority of them are women. Yes, I would bet most "women pro-lifers" are women :-). Do you mean that most pro-lifers are women or vice versa? (Or both?!) > 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? WHAT principle? Is coercion a principle? If you can get away with coercing a woman to carry an unwanted entity within her body for nine months, on what grounds can you claim her to be anything other than your slave? > Who else is there to speak for > the rights of those in line to be aborted? On what principle do you have the right to make the decision that the unborn should be born? How do you justify taking control of the body of another person to accomplish this end? One caveat: don't quote the bible at me. I'm not a Christian and I don't believe the bible to be anything but badly distorted history and unfounded speculation. Now for Ms. Creighton: > The argument that ``men shouldn't have an opinion about abortion since they > will never have to experience it'' sounds very much like ``whites > shouldn't have an opinion about black slavery ...'' or ``people who > are not of military age should not have an opinion about conscription ...'' I believe that I said "men shouldn't make rules about abortion", not "men shouldn't have an opinion about abortion". Having an opinion is fine. Implementing it in reality by coercion of others is not. As for the two allegedly similar quotes, I think "whites shouldn't make rules which enslave blacks" and "people who are not of military age should not make rules to promote conscription of others" are far more similar. > Are males so radically different from females that understanding is > impossible? Are men and women so similar that men can get pregnant? Why would understanding justify coercion? > Are issues beyond the immediate effects to the pregnant > woman already deemed to be so ``unimportant'' that people who are > concerned with them are to be shouted down? What issues beyond the immediate effects? Are abortionists to be required to buy crystal balls to see whether the fetus will grow up to be another Einstein? How will the people who want this baby so badly recompense the woman for carrying it, particularly for losses to intangibles such as respect and career growth? > Who deems that they [the effects (?)] are ``unimportant''? > The women who want abortion, because they > are the only ones who think they will have an oportunity to > experience it? Sounds pretty circular to me. Who can deem that the "effects" are of such importance as to merit coercion of another person? If a person does not have the right to control his or her body, then that person is a slave. If the choice of abortion versus no abortion is decided for a woman, then she is a slave to those who make that choice. BTW, if abortion is recriminalized in the States, I'll get a vasectomy ASAP. I will not have some dictator telling me to have and raise children I don't want. -- Ken "Smurf-shredder" Montgomery ...{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]