marco@andromeda.UUCP (the wharf rat) (09/13/86)
In article <5269@decwrl.DEC.COM>, ferrin@tonto.dec.com (Doug Ferrin) writes: > > > >In article <5152@decwrl.DEC.COM>, ferrin@tonto.dec.com (Doug Ferrin) writes:< > >> > >> > >> > Try "I do not want to be pregnant, and it's my body" You are free << > > > My main concern is that abortion is being used as a form > of birth control and not for what it was intended - to save a > mothers life, rape, incest etc.. Is this really what it's intended for, though ? > think an innocent third party ... > This blob of cells,... > zygote or whatever label you attach to it has never > developed into anything other than a human being in all of > history. So to say that it's just a mass of tissue is incorrect. You're right ! I'll say it's a mass of tissue that may someday become a human being, O.K. ? Acorns seldom yield anything but oak trees; is an acorn an oak tree ? All life on earth developed from single celled organisms (you don't _really_ believe the fossil record is just a shuck by the Almighty, do you ?). Therefore single celled organisms will _eventually_ become human beings. Which leads me to the following: Down with murdering antibiotics !, W.rat And it's *not* killing a baby !
marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (09/16/86)
In <5269@decwrl.DEC.COM>, ferrin@tonto.dec.com (Doug Ferrin) wrote: > My main concern is that abortion is being used as a form > of birth control and not for what it was intended - to save a > mothers life, rape, incest etc.... How do you know what abortion was intended for? Give us a reference to your evidence for intent. My impression is that abortion was invented centuries ago, not for medical necessity, but for social necessity, by young women who were in panic because a pregnancy would "ruin their lives." However, my evidence consists mostly of vague memories from old novels. Am I misled? If so, set me right. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houem!marty1
david@tekig5.UUCP (David Hayes) (09/16/86)
In article <5269@decwrl.DEC.COM> ferrin@tonto.dec.com (Doug Ferrin) writes: > > I very much sympathise with the plight of women. From > this last article it is evident that you spent a good deal of > your life trying not to get pregnant. More than I can say for a > family friend who just had an abortion at 5 months pregnant and > never practiced birth control - second abortion too. So this was a case of when abortion was bad in your eyes. Should the intent of the mother be weighed? Did she try hard enough to not get pregnant? > My main concern is that abortion is being used as a form > of birth control and not for what it was intended - to save a > mothers life, rape, incest etc.. The percentage of these is very I don't know if their was ever an "intended use" for abortion other than terminating pregnancies. > low. One abortion clinic in a neighboring town has advertised > free pregnancy tests. The new scam that was found at the clinic > was that women who not pregnant were being told that they were. > The clinic would then go ahead with the mock abortion. Big > BUCKS $$$$$. Now the abrtionist are playing games with your > head and your wallet. All doctors that perform abortions are now conspiring against women? The fact that one clinic gypped women ount of their money is a reason for legislation? Funny, in our town their are pro-life centers masqerading as abortion clinics to intentionally deceive. > I am against abortion for convenience. I don't You mean if she got pregnant she should pay for it, right? > think an innocent third party should pay because someone wants > to be sexually active and has an "accident". This blob of cells, Of what third party do you speak? Why do you separate a fetus from the mother? It cannot be done in the real world. And what does innocence have to do with anything? Isn't the mother innocent? > zygote or whatever label you attach to it has never > developed into anything other than a human being in all of > history. So to say that it's just a mass of tissue is incorrect. > It will - if it is let to live - grow up to be a human being. > Nothing else. And to stop it's development at that stage by Monkeys are monkeys too, what is your point? > grinding it to a pulp and throwing it away is the worst form of > child abuse that I've heard of. > Ah, you are one of those sensitive individuals who carry the signs with pictures of bloody hacked up fetuses. Next you will be telling us what is actually done with dead fetuses. Ooooh, ick. Have you seen what parents do with some unwanted real children? (that is post birth Doug) > > Cheers, > Have a nice day. > Doug Ferrin cheers, have a nice day, so long as you don't do anything I don't like. dave
carole@rosevax.UUCP (Carole Ashmore) (09/19/86)
In article <5269@decwrl.DEC.COM>, ferrin@tonto.dec.com (Doug Ferrin) writes: > > >Don't talk to ME about birth control; I'm an expert. Abortion is > >needed as a backup by responsible women who don't believe in having > >accidental children. > Carole Ashmore > > > I very much sympathise with the plight of women. . . > My main concern is that abortion is being used as a form > of birth control and not for what it was intended - to save a > mothers life, rape, incest etc.. The percentage of these is very > low. > I am against abortion for convenience. I don't > think an innocent third party should pay because someone wants > to be sexually active and has an "accident". This blob of cells, > zygote or whatever label you attach to it has never > developed into anything other than a human being in all of > history. So to say that it's just a mass of tissue is incorrect. > It will - if it is let to live - grow up to be a human being. > Nothing else. And to stop it's development at that stage by > grinding it to a pulp and throwing it away is the worst form of > child abuse that I've heard of. Save your sympathy for the (man made) 'plight' of women. If we manage to hang on to our proper quota of human rights we won't need it. Now let's examine the moral position of a man who feels that abortion is " . . . the worst form of child abuse." while at the same time feeling that it should be used " . . . to save a mother's life, rape, incest etc." Saving the mother's life is a moot point in this argument, as you can't save the fetus if the mother is dead, so let's concentrate on just why you should claim abortion is child abuse if the mother is "sexually active" but proper in the case of rape or incest. Sensible people, moral people, distinguish between fetus and child, not between children normally conceived and children conceived of rape or incest. Would you allow infanticide of a newly born child of rape? How about physical abuse of a five year old child of incest? No? Then why will you allow what you, yourself term "the worst form of child abuse" in these cases BEFORE birth? I know why, of course, having spent twenty years arguing with moralistic prigs who CLAIM to oppose abortion because it is the murder of a child but are willing to forget the notion of murder instantly if the mother was 'innocent', if she wasn't 'sexually active' of her own free will, if she was the victim of rape or of the intrafamilial child abuse of incest, IF IT WASN'T HER FAULT. I know that your concern for the fetus is a sham to hide your less socially acceptable urge to punish sexually active women with the threat of unwanted pregnancy; and anyone else who sees these two arguments side by side should know it too. There are some people in the world who really believe that abortion is the murder of a child and oppose it in all cases; you are not one of them. I can respect these people's moral position, even while disagreeing with them. Your moral position is worthy of nothing but disgust. To hell with "Have a nice day" (as you are forever saying in your signature). Examine your conscience and have a lousy day. Carole Ashmore
stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) (09/21/86)
I know it's a lot to ask, but I wish that mothers of "unwanted" children
could somehow find the strength to carry the child to term and give it up
for adoption. It's a difficult thing to do, but it would be a much more
satisfying thing to look back on than a "might have been".
--
Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>rha@bunker.UUCP (Robert H. Averack) (09/24/86)
In article <208@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP writes: >I know it's a lot to ask, but I wish that mothers of "unwanted" children >could somehow find the strength to carry the child to term and give it up >for adoption. It's a difficult thing to do, but it would be a much more >satisfying thing to look back on than a "might have been". >-- >Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart> Perhaps you might consider wishing that the guys out there have the strength to accept something less than "flesh-to-flesh" intercourse and use rubbers. Also, how can you be so presumptuous as to suggest that going through the trial of 40-weeks gestation, only to end in permanent separation, is more satisfying than "to look back on a might have been". Neither you, nor I, nor any man on this planet will ever have the empathy to understand the innermost feelings of a woman, pregnant or otherwise. -- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (Robert H. Averack @ Bunker Ramo, Trumbull, Ct.) ! ! ! ! ## "...it is better to have loved USENET: bunker!rha ! ! #OO# in lofts than to never have UUCP: bunker!/usr/spool ! ! ###### loved at all!" /uucppublic/averack ! ! ##\/## - Julius "Groucho" Marx OFFLINE: 35 Nutmeg Dr. ! ! ###### ("Monkey Business" - 1930) Trumbull, CT 06611 ! ! L L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (10/02/86)
In article <208@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: >I know it's a lot to ask, but I wish that mothers of "unwanted" children >could somehow find the strength to carry the child to term and give it up >for adoption. It's a difficult thing to do, but it would be a much more >satisfying thing to look back on than a "might have been". >-- >Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart> Just out of curiosity, why do you wish this? I don't understand the reason to undergo the extreme stigma of doing what is suggested? Women have too much at stake mentally, physically, and psycologically. P.M.Pincha-Wagener
stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) (10/08/86)
In article <705@bcsaic.UUCP>, pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (wagener) writes: > >could somehow find the strength to carry the child to term and give it up > Just out of curiosity, why do you wish this? I don't understand the > reason to undergo the extreme stigma of doing what is suggested? > Women have too much at stake mentally, physically, and psycologically. Love. Not Eros (sex), but Sturge (affection) or even Agape (divine love). Mother love. It used to come natural. (What? Are we sick or something? Yes.) -- Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>