jrl@harpo.UUCP (jrl) (03/23/84)
Egnough of this horsechips. Let's get down to some basics.
1) A human being does not exist until it is able to draw its
own breath.
2) We live in an advanced society with many tools. Abortion is one
of them. YOU choose to use or ignore this tool.
3) People who are forced to have children (by whatever means) will
never forget it and hence their child will know it.
4) Most pro-lifers are affluent middle class WASPS, who never
stop to realize the emotional and economic inpact of raising
a unwanted child.
Now let me pose some questions to all pro-lifers:
1) if your mate had medical complications in pregnancy and there
was a chance that she would die in labor, would you allow the
pregnancy to continue ? I for one would choose abortion since
I could never accept a child that caused the death of my mate
due to anti-abortion laws
2) If pre-natal screening showed a good chance of severe birth
defects would you choose abortion ? Let us face the facts that
this society basically has no use for non-productive people.
Forcing the birth of a child with severe defects is very cruel
to the parents, and most of all the child. A couple that I know
had such a child and it is still alive at the age of 28 in a
State home. He mentally is the equivalent of a 10 month old
infant. Is this life ?
3) Would you move from your home to low income housing because
of economic pressures due to the birth of an unwanted child.
Children are very expensive. It now costs about 95,000 to raise
a child thru 2 years of college. It took me a long time to
get the material things that I wanted and I will not drop my
standard of living if I have a choice. (I would prefer to marry
a woman who could not have children, and adopt one if we felt
that a child is necessary to the realize the full meaning of
life)
On the points of poor women not being able to afford an abortion.
1) A poor woman can get an abortion thru most states welfare
system. The reason that they don't is that each child born
means an increase in the AFDC payments and hence it is not
too uncommon here in New York for a 20 year old to have 5
children at home and one in the belly.
Actually they treat their children most of the times like
shit and should not have them until they can afford the
economic and mental means to give them a good chance to
realize a full life. Some countries cut benefits to people
on the dole who breed like rabbits. In our great land
of liberals this would be decalred unconstitutional. If I
have to practice birth control because of economic problems,
then people on the dole should be forced to use them also.
If the pro-lifers are so damn concerned about human life, how come none
of them suggest the banning of tobacco products, nuclear weapons and
dumping of industrial waste in residental neighborhoods, or that all
capital spent on weapons research be redirected towards agriculture
and medical inprovements in third world countries. Does it make sense
to develop weapons that they hope will never be used ? saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/24/84)
I would just like to add that even though what has been said is
anti-anti-abortion, I do not consider it to be pro-choice.
The pro-choice position as far as I know is to give people a choice on
whether or not to have children, and to try to arrange society in such
a way that people who want children can have children and that those
who don't are not forced to.
Removing child care benefits and enforced birth control (even in the figurative
sense) certainly does not promote these goals.
Sophie Quigley
...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigleyix192@sdccs6.UUCP (03/26/84)
[] >From ...harpo!jrl > Egnough of this horsechips. Let's get down to some basics. If we sit around and call eachother or our article's names, we'll never get anything done! > 1) A human being does not exist until it is able to draw its > own breath. Very, very debatable!!! And unimportant, I believe. You are trying to win off a technicality, saying that we aren't killing anything human. This isn't some court where there is a case to be won. There's a point to be won, but not off some technicality - you 'win' by convincing others. Technicalities will win a case in court, but the opposing side (and some to the supporting) will be completely unsatisfied. Net.abortion isn't a court where abortion is in for a once-and-only trial, so technicalities won't work in here. People need to be convinced, not tricked by drawing a line and saying "right" and "wrong". And unless you can get everyone in the net to draw the same line, you won't win on a techincality. > 2) We live in an advanced society with many tools. Abortion is one > of them. YOU choose to use or ignore this tool. Interesting way of putting it. I guess capitol punishment is a world tool to help with criminals, that the US is ignoring? But again, some tools (like nukes in small wars) are considered too dangerous to be useful. I like the indication of freedom, however. > 3) People who are forced to have children (by whatever means) will > never forget it and hence their child will know it. True. Plus their live's will be thrown for a loop for a while (the time depending on the parent's parents & finantial status & etc.), plus it might ruin the relationship, plus plus plus. If people don't want something, I don't see why they should have to. I would think that the parents have a more valuable opinion than the fetus (I would assume it wanted to live). > 4) Most pro-lifers are affluent middle class WASPS, who never > stop to realize the emotional and economic inpact of raising > a unwanted child. I donno about that. If you really want to argue pure theory, don't put any physical limitations on the people you're arguing with. > If the pro-lifers are so damn concerned about human life, how come none > of them suggest the banning of tobacco products, nuclear weapons and > dumping of industrial waste in residental neighborhoods, or that all > capital spent on weapons research be redirected towards agriculture > and medical inprovements in third world countries. Does it make sense > to develop weapons that they hope will never be used ? See? You're putting limits on people again! What wins abortion for one people has to win (work?) for all the others. People are people, with all their options and choices and beliefs in life. They are entitled to them, and you are entitled to try to change them, but assuming that because of one opinon they are the same in another subject is rather stupid. I happen to be for abortion, but that doesn't have anything to do with my opinions on nuclear weapons or smoking or life in third-world countries. The only thing you know about pro-lifers is that they generally don't support abortion. For all you know, their (and our) opinions on nuclear war or famine or on just anything else have just as much to do with abortion as they do with Cuban zukini. Kenn the Kenf ...!sdcsvax!kenn ...!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix192 ...!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!kenn