saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/18/84)
Open letter to pro-lifers:
Has anybody who believes that abortion is a murder ever considered seriously
the possibility that abortion might be an effect rather than a cause of our
carelessness about life in general. I think that history clearly points to
this interpretation. Acceptance of abortion is a relatively recent phenomenon,
less than a century old. Murder, torture, genocide has been happening for as
long as we can remember in human history. How can it be claimed that all of
these crimes will be caused by the acceptance of abortion? They exist already
and have existed for thousands of years. If you are concerned about abortion
creating these crimes against humanity, then I suggest you wake up and realise
that there is no need for abortion to create those crimes and start do something
about them instead of working on something which is hardly related. Your
government has already accepted genocide. It is done in South America under the
name of "american interests". The people being killed there are clearly human,
they have already been born and proved that they are human and they are still
being killed: indians in guatemala, people opposing the governments of chile,
uruguay, el salvador, the list goes on.
If you are really worried that the genocide will reach home and that there will
be nobody there to help you out when it gets to you because they will all have
been killed than maybe you should worry about those who are already been killed.
If on the other hand, you are simply worried about desensitisation to life, then
may I suggest that you also look around to see what causes this desensitisation.
It doesn't start with embryos being killed, it starts with animals being killed
and tortured. This killing is institutionalised, it is called biology 101,
where you learn that it is ok to stick a pin in a frog's brain, squish things
around and then cut it up in little pieces while it is still alive, all this in
the name of "learning". There are more and more examples, but it is clear that
one of the first ways people are being desensitised to suffering and killing is
by teaching them to do it on animals, and by teaching them to eat flesh and not
think of the animal where it came from as a living being, but as a meat machine.
If finally what horrifies you is the idea that somebody would want to kill their
own children, then maybe you should look around to see why they want to kill
them and work on removing the incentives rather than preventing the killing.
Listen to the women telling you that they want safe methods of birth control
widely available and work on creating those. Listen to the people telling you
that they cannot have children because they do not have time to take care of
them, and work on creating easily accessible day care facilities. Listen to
those telling you that they cannot afford children and help them financially.
Listen to the parents who tell you that they cannot give a child up for adoption
to strangers because they cannot conceive of ever being allowed to see their
child again, and start to work on less punitive adoption systems. There is a
lot to be done, but in the long run, won't it be more useful than stopping
each woman one by one from having an abortion?
Unless you are working on all these areas, along with your pro-life efforts,
I just cannot believe you genuinely care about life.
Sophie Quigley
...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigleydyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (03/19/84)
Sophie, I just dropped accidentally into the middle of this discussion, with a broken .newsrc, but your recent article attempting to rebut anti- abortion arguments is completely off the mark. I don't understand the reasoning behind it. It seems to say, "yes, abortion is an atrocity, but atrocities have been going on for millenia, so don't pick on abortion." It seems to me that anyone who accepts this premise needs accept the whole package--namely, that abortion is in fact a moral wrong, and should be avoided at all costs. Otherwise, you need to be able to juggle moral concepts according to convenience, and live with a good deal of cognitive dissonance. I mean, I can at least understand where someone is coming from when she says to me, "the fetus is not a person--I have no qualms about terminating a pregnancy." But this other argument... A number of Catholic organization are, in fact, trying to provide alternatives to abortion for women. One would wish, however, that they would also put their money up front for effective contraception and contraceptive counseling. On the other hand, for most women today, the Church's proscription against contraception has little force. /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (03/19/84)
[From Sophie Quigley:] > Has anybody who believes that abortion is a murder ever > considered seriously the possibility that abortion might be > an effect rather than a cause of our carelessness about life > in general. I think that history clearly points to this > recent phenomenon, less than a century old. Murder, > torture, genocide has been happening for as long as we can > remember in human history. How can it be claimed that all > of these crimes will be caused by the acceptance of > abortion? I think that it is generally accepted in the pro-life view that abortion is both a cause and an effect. It is both a product of, and contributor to, a degraded view of human worth. Also the acceptance of abortion is not recent. It was practiced extensively by the ancient Greeks and Romans. Both Plato (Republic) and Aristotle (Politics) condoned its practice for the good of the state. Of course, the methods used then were extremely dangerous to the woman. > If you are concerned about abortion creating > these crimes against humanity, then I suggest you wake up > and realise that there is no need for abortion to create > those crimes and start do something about them instead of > working on something which is hardly related. Again, I don't think you can say that the pro-life view puts abortion as the root cause of all crimes against humanity. On the other hand I don't know how you can say that it is "hardly related". > Your > government has already accepted genocide. It is done in > South America under the name of "american interests". The > people being killed there are clearly human, they have > already been born and proved that they are human and they > are still being killed: indians in guatemala, people > opposing the governments of chile, uruguay, el salvador, the > list goes on. If you are really worried that the genocide > will reach home and that there will be nobody there to help > you out when it gets to you because they will all have been > killed than maybe you should worry about those who are > already been killed. Who is to say that pro-life people are not just as much against this kind of killing? This is beside the point, but I think that your use of the word "genocide" is an interpretation of events in those countries. I'm not supporting our government's involvement in those areas, but I distrust the news media's coverage of them. Their coverage of events in Guatemala during the presidency Rios Montt was particularly biased and uninformed. Such uncertianty as to what is really going on there makes informed involvement very difficult, if not impossible. Have you ever seen an interview with a Guatemalian Indian in the papers, or one with people (e.g. missionaries) that have worked closely with those indians for many years? And how much have you heard of their plight lately (i.e. since Rios Montt was ousted)? More on the subject, abortion seems to be an issue where it is very possible to have more informed opinions. Also, its victims are completely innocent and defenseless. > > If on the other hand, you are simply worried about > desensitisation to life, then may I suggest that you also > look around to see what causes this desensitisation. It > doesn't start with embryos being killed, it starts with > animals being killed and tortured. This killing is > institutionalised, it is called biology 101, where you learn > that it is ok to stick a pin in a frog's brain, squish > things around and then cut it up in little pieces while it > is still alive, all this in the name of "learning". There > are more and more examples, but it is clear that one of the > first ways people are being desensitised to suffering and > killing is by teaching them to do it on animals, and by > teaching them to eat flesh and not think of the animal where > it came from as a living being, but as a meat machine. > I don't think the reasoning can be carried back this far. How about swatting insects in the summer time only because they annoy us? The issue here is human life, Sophie. My neighbor's dog and the snail darter have more protection under the law than the human fetus. Are you trying to say that disecting a frog in Biology 101 is really the cause of murder and genocide and all the other crimes against humanity? I don't think so. Acceptance of disecting animals to obtain knowledge is a relatively new thing. Murder and genocide have been around much longer than that. ( :-) sorry, can't resist). > If finally what horrifies you is the idea that somebody > would want to kill their own children, then maybe you should > look around to see why they want to kill them and work on > removing the incentives rather than preventing the killing. How do you know this isn't happening, Sophie? Did you read my response to the "abortion quiz" posted in net.women a few weeks ago? > Listen to the women telling you that they want safe methods > of birth control widely available and work on creating > those. Widely available to whom? > Listen to the people telling you that they cannot > have children because they do not have time to take care of > them, and work on creating easily accessible day care > facilities. Listen to those telling you that they cannot > afford children and help them financially. Listen to the > parents who tell you that they cannot give a child up for > adoption to strangers because they cannot conceive of ever > being allowed to see their child again, and start to work on > less punitive adoption systems. There is a lot to be done, > but in the long run, won't it be more useful than stopping > each woman one by one from having an abortion? Your're right there is a lot to be done. And pro-life people are trying to do it. But do you place the burden completely on their shoulders? Why shouldn't pro-choice people care just as much about these things. If abortion is a choice, the decision not to abort is also. If any of the people in the above situations made the choice not to abort, would they receive any support for that choice from the pro-choice camp? Or do you believe abortion is automatically the best choice and exempt youself from the caring you demand from the pro-life groups...leave it to them? Also, I've often wondered why killing one's children is seen as a reasonable alternative to letting them be born and giving them to a loving home, even with the possibility of never seeing them again. > > Unless you are working on all these areas, along with your > pro-life efforts, I just cannot believe you genuinely care > about life. > There are a lot of people working in these areas, Sophie. How can you expect the same group of people (those working against abortion) to spread themselves so thin. You multiply the problems that pro-life people should be concerned about to the point of impracticability and then say that they are not concerned about life because they don't cover all those areas. Do you really think that taking away all the incentive for abortion is the whole answer? Would you accept any reasonable means of doing this, such as telling minors that engaging in sex is not good because they are not responsible and mature enough to deal with the consequences? Also, suppose we apply your reasoning to all forms of killing. Do you think it will work? Should we repeal laws against murder and instead concentrate on removing the incentives for it? Paul Dubuc
garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary Samuelson) (03/20/84)
>From bunker!ittvax!decvax!mcnc!akgua!clyde!watmath!saquigley Sun Mar 18 11:27:40 1984 Subject: open letter to pro-lifers Newsgroups: net.abortion In response to Sophie Quiqley's open letter to pro-lifers: > Has anybody who believes that abortion is a murder ever considered > seriously the possibility that abortion might be an effect rather > than a cause of our carelessness about life in general? I think > that history clearly points to this interpretation. I'll buy that. Abortion results from a careless attitude about life. Certainly, a careless attitude about life is a bad thing. Thus, it seems clear that abortion is a bad thing. (Typically bad causes have bad effects.) > Acceptance of abortion is a relatively recent phenomenon, less than > a century old. Murder, torture, genocide has been happening for as > long as we can remember in human history. How can it be claimed that > all of these crimes will be caused by the acceptance of abortion? You left out infanticide. Yes, all of these acts result from a careless attitude about life in general. Yes, we should try to change people's attitude about life in general (or should we? would it be a violation of rights to try to correct an attitude we think is wrong?) In the meantime, however, we need to prevent the actions of murder etc., which result from this bad attitude. After all, the potential victims, I would suppose, are more worried about the effect (their own deaths) than about the attitude. > They exist already and have existed for thousands of years. If you > are concerned about abortion creating these crimes against humanity, > then I suggest you wake up and realise that there is no need for > abortion to create those crimes and start do something about them > instead of working on something which is hardly related. I'm not concerned about abortion creating these crimes; I am concerned about abortion exacerbating the already widespread disregard for life. And why is abortion unrelated to these other crimes? Haven't we already agreed that they result from the same attitude? > Your government has already accepted genocide. It is done in South > America under the name of "american interests". The people being > killed there are clearly human, they have already been born and > proved that they are human and they are still being killed: indians > in guatemala, people opposing the governments of chile, uruguay, > el salvador, the list goes on. So if I try to stop what is happening in Guatemala, they will ask why I don't do something about Chile. And the Chileans will ask why I don't do something about Uruguay or El Salvador. The fact that problem B exists doesn't mean we should not deal with problem A. > If you are really worried that the genocide will reach home and > that there will be nobody there to help you out when it gets to > you because they will all have been killed than maybe you should > worry about those who are already been killed. And what do you propose I do about those who "are already been killed" ? > If on the other hand, you are simply worried about desensitisation > to life, then may I suggest that you also look around to see what > causes this desensitisation. It doesn't start with embryos being > killed, it starts with animals being killed and tortured. This > killing is institutionalised, it is called biology 101, where you > learn that it is ok to stick a pin in a frog's brain, squish things > around and then cut it up in little pieces while it is still alive, > all this in the name of "learning". There are more and more examples, > but it is clear that one of the first ways people are being > desensitised to suffering and killing is by teaching them to do it > on animals, and by teaching them to eat flesh and not think of the > animal where it came from as a living being, but as a meat machine. Excuse me, but I think you have strayed from the subject. I don't think that net.abortion is the place to discuss the morality of dissection or the morality of being omnivorous. (But, since you brought it up...) Assuming from the above that you are a strict vegetarian, why do you not consider plants to be living beings? Are you really saying that the problem of abortion is a result of the human tendency to eat meat? > If finally what horrifies you is the idea that somebody would want > to kill their own children, then maybe you should look around to > see why they want to kill them and work on removing the incentives > rather than preventing the killing. Listen to the women telling > you that they want safe methods of birth control widely available > and work on creating those. Listen to the people telling you > that they cannot have children because they do not have time to > take care of them, and work on creating easily accessible day care > facilities. Listen to those telling you that they cannot afford > children and help them financially. Listen to the parents who tell > you that they cannot give a child up for adoption to strangers because > they cannot conceive of ever being allowed to see their child again, > and start to work on less punitive adoption systems. There is a > lot to be done, but in the long run, won't it be more useful than > stopping each woman one by one from having an abortion? Lots of people don't think they have the time or the financial resources to care for children, until they have one. But in the case of those who really can't, and give a child up for adoption, would you allow the natural parent, years later, take the child away from its adoptive parents, who have wanted the child from the beginning? But aren't you changing horses in midstream? In a previous article, you said that forcing a woman to carry a child to term and force her to raise it was "punishment." Now you are saying that taking the child away and not allowing the mother to care for it is "punitive." And, as if it's any of your business, I have financially helped people who could not afford to take adequate care of their children. Have you? > Unless you are working on all these areas, along with your pro-life > efforts, I just cannot believe you genuinely care about life. I'm willing to do my share, but you ask the impossible. Look at the list of problems: * Murder * Torture * Genocide * Guatemala * Chile * Uruguay * El Salvador * Dissection * Carnivorism * Parenting * Birth Control * Day Care * Financial Aid * Adoption No one person can possibly work on all of these problems; therefore, you are saying that you will never believe that I genuinely care about life. What are *you* doing about each of these problems? Or do you admit that you do not genuinely care about life? Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!bunkerb!garys
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/22/84)
I was mainly replying to the argument: "abortion will cause all sorts of
atrocities to happen" by saying that these atrocities do happen anyway, so
if it is these atrocities that people want to avoid by making abortion
illegal, they are off the mark and should probably concentrate their efforts
on the already existing atrocities.
I next replied to the "abortion will desensitise us to the value of life"
argument by pointing out that this desensitisation does occur much earlier and
is learned on animals rather than on fetuses.
I was just trying to point out that the arguments saying that abortion will be
the source of all evil are off the mark and people who are worried about evil
or its source should probably concentrate their efforts on the source or on the
existing evil.
Now abortion can be considered evil in itself without looking at the alleged
"consequences". If people are against abortion in itself because it is evil and
not because it will "cause" more evil then I was merely pointing out that it
might be a better idea for them to work on reducing the need for abortion rather
than outlaw it.
Does that make more sense?
Sophie Quigley
...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigleysaquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/22/84)
Paul Dubuc's reaction to my letter: } [From Sophie Quigley:] } > Has anybody who believes that abortion is a murder ever } > considered seriously the possibility that abortion might be } > an effect rather than a cause of our carelessness about life } > in general. I think that history clearly points to this } > recent phenomenon, less than a century old. Murder, } > torture, genocide has been happening for as long as we can } > remember in human history. How can it be claimed that all } > of these crimes will be caused by the acceptance of } > abortion? } } I think that it is generally accepted in the pro-life view that } abortion is both a cause and an effect. It is both a product of, } and contributor to, a degraded view of human worth. If this is true then that's alright. However from the pro-life propaganda I have heard and seen, it seems that pro-life groups are not united on that one. I have heard it said quite often that abortion will cause all sorts of atrocities. It is this "cause" and "effect" relationship that I cannot believe can be proven. If you believe so, then we agree. } Also the acceptance of abortion is not recent. It was practiced } extensively by the ancient Greeks and Romans. Both Plato (Republic) } and Aristotle (Politics) condoned its practice for the good of the } state. Of course, the methods used then were extremely dangerous } to the woman. yes, but in our so-called "modern" world it is recent. } > If you are concerned about abortion creating } > these crimes against humanity, then I suggest you wake up } > and realise that there is no need for abortion to create } > those crimes and start do something about them instead of } > working on something which is hardly related. } } Again, I don't think you can say that the pro-life view puts abortion } as the root cause of all crimes against humanity. On the other hand } I don't know how you can say that it is "hardly related". Well we agree on this. But I still believe that they are hardly related. if they are, then please explain to me what the relationship is between my abortion and the Guatemalan indian being killed. } > Your } > government has already accepted genocide. It is done in } > South America under the name of "american interests". The } > people being killed there are clearly human, they have } > already been born and proved that they are human and they } > are still being killed: indians in guatemala, people } > opposing the governments of chile, uruguay, el salvador, the } > list goes on. If you are really worried that the genocide } > will reach home and that there will be nobody there to help } > you out when it gets to you because they will all have been } > killed than maybe you should worry about those who are } > already been killed. } } Who is to say that pro-life people are not just as much against this } kind of killing? This is beside the point, but I think that your } use of the word "genocide" is an interpretation of events in those countries. } I'm not supporting our government's involvement in those areas, but } I distrust the news media's coverage of them. Their coverage of } events in Guatemala during the presidency Rios Montt was particularly } biased and uninformed. Such uncertianty as to what is really going } on there makes informed involvement very difficult, if not impossible. } Have you ever seen an interview with a Guatemalian Indian in the papers, } or one with people (e.g. missionaries) that have worked closely with } those indians for many years? And how much have you heard of their } plight lately (i.e. since Rios Montt was ousted)? I did not say that all pro-life people are not against that form of killing, but that if they aren't than they are not being consistent. I have talked to quite a few pro-life people mainly christians and many of them did not disaprove of such killing. It is to those people that my criticism is directed, not to people like you. As far as the media's coverage is concerned, I totally agree with you that it is hard to find unbiasedness, but I believe that it unbiasedness is contrary to human nature and so that nobody is completely unbiased. That is why I am not too concerned about it. I just try to listen to as many different sources as possible and hope that I can get as full a picture of what is happening as possible. As far as recent coverage of atrocities in guatemala or elsewhere in the world is concerned, yes, I have been reading about it lately, and I have read interviews with Salvadoran refugees and just yesterday about guatemalan peasants reactions towards bags of flies that their government is dropping by plane on their village. It turns out that those flies are benefactory, but as the government hasn't told the peasants what the flies are for, and as they are used to so much brutality from their governments, the peasants cannot think for a minute that there could be any good reason why those flies would be sent. They go through all the pains of trying to figure out what these flies are for, debating on the dangerousness of asking about them and complaining about them, and then decide that the safest thing to do is just not say anything, but try to burn the bags before they erupt. (Manchester Guardian march 4th). I think this story shows very clearly the state of repression in Guatemala. Anyway, all this to say that there is coverage of events in the world, you just have to look hard to find it. } More on the subject, abortion seems to be an issue where it is very } possible to have more informed opinions. Also, its victims are completely } innocent and defenseless. It is always possible to have informed opinions on anything if you are really interested. You have in your country a wonderful act, the freedom of information act. For each issue that you are interested in there is a usually a whole network of groups concerned with the same issues and from where you can find information and tips on how to get information (e.g the pro-life network). The power of these networks is not to be underestimated. If it all fails, you can often get some information by talking to the people involved or writing letters. Information is hard to find if you are waiting it to be spoon-fed to you, but if you actively look for it, it is not that easy. the greates thing about America is that we do have the right to information here, and we should take advantage of that right and not relinquish it to such groups as big media corporations. As far as innocence and defenselessness are concerned, I do not see what this has to do with the debate. Unless you believe in the death penalty, then there is no reason why it is better to kill a guatemalan indian than kill a fetus. And defenselessness is a very relative thing. A gun cannot do much against a bomb. I am not saying of course that the fetus is not defenseless or innocent, but that it is not the only one which is such. } > } > If on the other hand, you are simply worried about } > desensitisation to life, then may I suggest that you also } > look around to see what causes this desensitisation. It } > doesn't start with embryos being killed, it starts with } > animals being killed and tortured. This killing is } > institutionalised, it is called biology 101, where you learn } > that it is ok to stick a pin in a frog's brain, squish } > things around and then cut it up in little pieces while it } > is still alive, all this in the name of "learning". There } > are more and more examples, but it is clear that one of the } > first ways people are being desensitised to suffering and } > killing is by teaching them to do it on animals, and by } > teaching them to eat flesh and not think of the animal where } > it came from as a living being, but as a meat machine. } > } } I don't think the reasoning can be carried back this far. How about } swatting insects in the summer time only because they annoy us? The } issue here is human life, Sophie. My neighbor's dog and the snail } darter have more protection under the law than the human fetus. Are } you trying to say that disecting a frog in Biology 101 is really the } cause of murder and genocide and all the other crimes against humanity? } I don't think so. Acceptance of disecting animals to obtain knowledge } is a relatively new thing. Murder and genocide have been around much } longer than that. ( :-) sorry, can't resist). Sorry, you can certainly go this far. As far as I can tell, life is life, whether it is vegetable, animal or human. We learn to desensitise ourselves to life by practising on "lower" forms. Ask any pre-med student. Part of the goal of vivisection is to teach them to desensitise themselves to life. When you perform vivisection in high school and you feel queezy about it, you are forced to mentally convince yourself that the fact that you are killing doesn't really matter, that it is ok in this case, because it is for the "greater good" of education. This is desensitisation to life. It starts with animals and then it goes on to humans. I cannot see why it is better to kill animals than humans except that we are humans, so we would rather kill members of different species than members of our own. If you read what I said I didn't say that vivisection CAUSES murder, but that desensitisation to life and death is learned on animals. Before vivisection for scientific purposes existed, it was still learned on animals in the form of play and killing to get meat. As far as the argument "animals have more protection under the law as fetuses", this is simply not true, they have the same amount of protection. I already posted an article on this either here or in net.women, so I will not bother repeating it, since it was ignored the first time. And even if animals did receive more protection, why shouldn't they? Some animals like whales and dolfins are much more evolved life forms than fetuses at their early stages. } > If finally what horrifies you is the idea that somebody } > would want to kill their own children, then maybe you should } > look around to see why they want to kill them and work on } > removing the incentives rather than preventing the killing. } } How do you know this isn't happening, Sophie? Did you read my } response to the "abortion quiz" posted in net.women a few weeks } ago? Again, I am not critisising those who do (like people who work for birthright) but those who don't. Not enough pro-life groups worry about this. Some even come out AGAINST contraception. } > Listen to the women telling you that they want safe methods } > of birth control widely available and work on creating } > those. } } Widely available to whom? To those who want them. } > Listen to the people telling you that they cannot } > have children because they do not have time to take care of } > them, and work on creating easily accessible day care } > facilities. Listen to those telling you that they cannot } > afford children and help them financially. Listen to the } > parents who tell you that they cannot give a child up for } > adoption to strangers because they cannot conceive of ever } > being allowed to see their child again, and start to work on } > less punitive adoption systems. There is a lot to be done, } > but in the long run, won't it be more useful than stopping } > each woman one by one from having an abortion? } } Your're right there is a lot to be done. And pro-life people are } trying to do it. But do you place the burden completely on their } shoulders? Why shouldn't pro-choice people care just as much about } these things. If abortion is a choice, the decision not to abort } is also. If any of the people in the above situations made the choice } not to abort, would they receive any support for that choice from } the pro-choice camp? Or do you believe abortion is automatically } the best choice and exempt youself from the caring you demand from } the pro-life groups...leave it to them? I am not placing the burden on pro-life people's shoulders. pro-choice groups are also working to get these things done. i am merely pointing out that people genuinely concerned about stopping abortion might be better off fighting to minimise the incentives to it rather than try to stop it. } Also, I've often wondered why killing one's children is seen } as a reasonable alternative to letting them be born and giving } them to a loving home, even with the possibility of never seeing } them again. The answer is that the children being killed are not often considered to be children yet, and that with the adoption system organised the way it is, there is no guarantee that the children will end up in a "loving home". I have seen cases of adopted children being mistreated (one in my own family) and not loved enough. } > Unless you are working on all these areas, along with your } > pro-life efforts, I just cannot believe you genuinely care } > about life. } > } } There are a lot of people working in these areas, Sophie. How } can you expect the same group of people (those working against } abortion) to spread themselves so thin. You multiply the problems } that pro-life people should be concerned about to the point of } impracticability and then say that they are not concerned about life } because they don't cover all those areas. I do not expect everybody to work on all those areas, but those who are concerned about certain aspects of abortion to work on all the areas related to these aspects. } Do you really think that taking away all the incentive for abortion } is the whole answer? Would you accept any reasonable means of doing } this, such as telling minors that engaging in sex is not good because } they are not responsible and mature enough to deal with the consequences? } Also, suppose we apply your reasoning to all forms of killing. Do } you think it will work? Should we repeal laws against murder and instead } concentrate on removing the incentives for it? No, it will not work completely, but it would greatly reduce the need. I personnally don't believe that abortion is as evil as it is made out to be so I am not too concerned about eliminating it. I would like to see it reduced greatly though, and I for one would like to be sure that I never have to have one in my life. I am willing to make some of the sacrifices involved in avoiding them, but not all the sacrifices because I believe that those sacrifices might be more detrimental for me than undergoing an early abortion would be both for me and the fetus. Why should we apply my reasonning to all forms of killing? I believe it would be a very good idea to try to apply my reasonning to all forms of killing, ie. work on prevention rather than punishment; I believe this would do a lot to prevent murders, but it would never solve the problem. However I consider murder to be a criminal act, but I do not consider abortion to be a criminal act, and I live in a society in which there is a concensus on the criminality of murder, so this society should act accordingly to its beliefs. I do not think that murder is defensible except in the case of self-defence, so if this belief is accepted by the society I live in, I do not see why murder laws should be repelled. } Paul Dubuc Sophie Quigley ...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigley } }
jj@rabbit.UUCP (03/23/84)
After reading Samuelson's second submission, I'm even more infuraited. You don't agree with Sophie, the way I understand it, and I think, from the 200 line rebuttal she posed, she must think so too. Your arguments are quite slanted, Gary, and you make assumptions continuously saying "nobody argues that..." when the "assumption" is what half of the discussion in this newsgroup is about. Enough. -- TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE--HUG YOURS TODAY! (If you go out in the woods today ... ) (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj