NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/abortion/54408

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-06 | 1.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!nobody
From: [e-mail] (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 6 Jan 1993 16:55:01 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Lines: 28
Distribution: usa
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>I was accused of unjustly reading something into a question   I think you are
>doing the same in this case.   I don't think anyone is denying the true
>significance of the burdens placed upon the mother.  If the unborn has some
>inherent value, however, why should the that value be determined by the
>mother's value?

Because, in this country, you get to use your own body as you see fit,
based upon your own values.  And that includes denying the use of that
body to someone else who really is, or merely claims to be, in dire need
of your body for their own purposes.

The only way to get around this little standing rule is to 'deny the true
significance of the burdens placed upon the mother.'  Refusing her sovereignty
over her own body makes her less than any other citizen in this country.

How could you *possibly* justify such a thing, on the basis of the claims
of another person?  You can't.  And fetuses aren't *more* worthy than another
person, are they?

If it's fair game for women, it's fair game for men, and we can use your
extra kidney, thanks.  Regardless of your own values about that.

Think about it.

Adrienne Regard