NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/abortion/54204

Text File | 1993-01-05 | 3.6 KB | 68 lines

Path: sparky!uunet!meaddata!johnt
From: [e-mail] (John Townsend)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 5 Jan 1993 16:37:09 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Lines: 55
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: skibum.meaddata.com

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Townsend) writes:
|> >Perhaps the problem is yours.  A fetus/embryo may be attached to the mother's
|> >body at the placenta, but it is not a part of the mother's body by any
|> >definition.  In fact, as a zygote, it is completely separate from the mother
|> >and, like you, needs nothing more than adequate nutrition and a safe environment
|> >to grow to any given level of maturity.
|>
|> The difference, of course, being that I am not taking my nutrition or
|> environment from a womans body.
|> However, if you personally want to provide a fetus with nutrition and
|> asafe environment, feel free.

Ergo, the right to live is contingent upon where one lives and receives one's
nourishment.  Hitler couldn't have said it better.

|> >Given any thought lately to what might have happened if abortion had been legal
|> >and morally acceptable when Bill Clinton's father died while little Billy was
|> >swimming through his second trimester, leaving a single mother without any
|> >welfare or job skills?  There would have been no "Hope" for Billy.
|>
|> Wow, another mind reader! What evidence can you provide that Moma
|> Clinton would have made the *choice* of aborting?
|> What's that? You can't provide any?
|> Not suprising.
|> This oh-so-oft repeated argument makes no more sense then this:
|> How about if your mom had been suffering from a headache John? There
|> would have been no hope for you, either.
|> Neither of these scenarios is any rational basis for legislation, or
|> even debate.
|> But you knew that already, didn't you?

Sounds like I hit a nerve.  I did say "might," you know.  Statistically,
however, given the conditions above, there would indeed have been no "Hope"
for Billy.  After all, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, some 93%
of abortions are performed essentially for the sake of convenience, with 6%
for the mother's or child's health and 1% for rape or incest.  The vast
majority of those 1,395,000 cases are far less dire than Billy's, and even
pro-choicers don't think these abortions are morally acceptable.  The fact is,
abortions can be and are performed because of "headaches."  I was lucky to be
born before RvW.

I think it's important to recognize that neither Choice nor Life are sacrosanct.
We constantly face limits on our choices.  I'd choose to be a billionaire, but
no one seems to be indulging me that right.  Likewise, should we not build
things like the Golden Gate Bridge or go to war, if there is a probability that
human life may be lost in the process of conducting these endeavors?  Of course
we should, if other conditions are met.  The question is which right should
hold sway over the other when they conflict.  I, for one, have chosen life.

--
// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         [e-mail]
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          [phone]