ix192@sdccs6.UUCP (03/31/84)
[] From: ...psuvax!psuvm%v6m (Marchionni) > 1. Kenn the Kenf is wrong on answering his on problem. I really liked the > answer given of shooting the bureaucrat. I would categorize the respondent > as "fullfilling parental obligation to defend the family". As a side note > this is a good reason to insist on the right to keep arms..but I digress. Sigh. With that one I guess I either wasn't clear enough or I sailed it over a lot of people's heads. If you really want the example taken literally, I also like the answer of killing the bureaucrat. I would too, if no other choices remained other than giving up a child. And I'd probably kill the bureaucrat a lot faster and with less hesitation than most of you. But you've mis-understood on everything I said in that example! It wasn't a real-life example, but a model!! It stood for something, it was symbolism!! You are supposed to give an answer on what it symbolized, not what it looks like if taken literally! Here's what I said: ------ -| I see abortion as a chance to save the potential mother's life. Saving her -| from having to care for an unwanted child, possibly marrying the wrong man, -| possibly giving up her future. All because someone decided that two living a -| life of suffering was better than one to go living and the other not at all. -| -| Suppose you had two children, one fourteen, one about a month old. Suppose -| some big, dark, evil bureaucrat was coming to claim one, take one away, and -| you had to make a choice. You have the baby under one arm, the fourteen-er -| under the other, the decision-awaiting bureaucrat in front of you. The pro- -| lifers would save the baby. The pro-choicers would save the fourteen-year- -| old. ------- I thought my my train of thought througout the reply would help everyone get where the my example was leading to. Apparently not. Here's a fuller explanation: For one, the parents have no choice in the decision; they are the fourteen-year- old. The abortion issue is already decided. Depending on that decision by the high-and-mighty moral-issue-deciders, they may go to the bureaucrat. You, the high-and-mighty moral-issue-decider, are the parent, and the baby is of course the fetus. The bureaucrat is *time*; not the magazine, but the dimention itself, something as unkillable and unavoidable as death. This bureaucrat is coming for somone, coming because of the damages an unwanted and unsupportable baby can do. Damamges that have a default contract for the fourteen-year-old if a decision is not made in nine months. This is the decision the parent has to make. He's not a real parent, perhaps I made a bad choice when I used a family as my model, but there still a choice to be made. The bureaucrat may not harm the fourteen-year-old as much as he certainly will the baby, but you'll never see the you chose the same, ever again. Why do I feel keeping the baby is so damaging to the parents? Besides the examples I used in my "baby & 14'er" article (above), here's another model, hopefully correctly symbolic of the situation (careful now!): Suppose your doctor calls you up, and says that yes, your tests show that you are going to be the proud owner of a Porshe 924. In nine months. The law has strict rules concerning the treatment of Porches, so once you get it, you can't junk it, nor abandon it, nor trade it in. It will be yours and always yours to take care of. Also, the Porche's contract states that you must completely pay for it, and starting rather soon. Now, can you handle that? Do you have room for that Porche in your garage, or even anywhere to park it? And can you pay it? I want to have children, I wouldn't mind owning a Porche. But right now I couldn't afford either, both in terms of finance and strains on my time, education, and career. If I had to pay for one now, it essentially would kill my life. If YOU had to pay for one, starting at this moment, could you handle it? Most people couldn't. That's why there's a need for abortion. We need something to make that Porche purchase go away until we can handle it. A Porche would be wonderful to have. But only when we're ready for it. > 2. ... > 3. ... > 4. We ... Sorry kiddo, but since you were so off-target in your reply, now that you've been corrected your 2,3 and 4 make no sense to reply to. Other than I agree with what you said in all of them. But then again, they have nothing to do with abortion! > 5. Your move Kenn..... Thanks! Pawn to Queen 7. Check? Kenn the Kenf ...!sdcsvax!kenn ...!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix192 ...!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!kenn