NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/abortion/55192

Text File | 1993-01-11 | 6.5 KB | 135 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!gatech!concert!rock!taco!jjprice
From: [e-mail] (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:02:56 GMT
Lines: 121


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Adrienne Regard) writes:

|>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
|>>No ofense here...but you were doing so well...when is murder "right"
|>>unless it is to protect yourself from bodily harm.(ie. A severe risk
|>>to the mothers life and well being...please note severe I am not talking
|>>about the normal wear and tear of a pregnacy I am talking life threatening
|>>or handicaping situation here.)
|>
|>why so limited a view?
|>
Limited View of What? Here some one said Murder was justified because
you can "choose" am I so limited as saying murder is wrong except in
self defense.

|>Now, just assume, just for a moment, that we could pop an aborted fetus
|>into an auto-mama and bring it to term.  No sweat, and pretty cheap, too.
|>
Don't we wish...but I'll play along.

|>If this were possible, would women be ALLOWED to 'abort'?  Because, say
|>they didn't want to be pregnant, or they didn't want to be fat, or because
|>they were having a bad hair day?  Essentially, because of any reason at all
|>that you can think of that any woman, even the most stupid and despicable,
|>might have to be non-pregnant?  After all: the fetus is in her body.
|>If she *could* remove it from her body, without harming it, wouldn't you
|>allow her to?

Yes I would
|>
|>Now, assuming you said yes -- really, what sense would a 'no' answer make?--
|>WHY did you say yes?
|>
I said yes because she is not aborting it...she is only removing and the fact
that it will be kept alive and healthy this option would be welcome but face
it..it is not optional today. Abortion kills it does not remove first it
KILLS. No one has a "right" to kill in today's society.

|>Did you say yes because you agreed with her reason?  Or because, SINCE the
|>fetus is in her body, and she doesn't want it there, SHE is the one who gets
|>to say to move it?  Because SHE owns the body.  Isn't that why?
|>
Yes it is...BUT she has no right to kill it.

|>Look at it from another point of view: this stupid and despicable in every
|>way woman is over 21, and, while admittedly stupid and despicable, is not
|>either retarded nor insane and thus isn't under the authority of any
|>guardian or custodian.  Do you think anybody *else* should have the right
|>and ability to insist her body be operated on, against her will, to move
|>that fetus from her body to the auto-mama?  And why would that be a 'no'
|>answer?  Isn't it because that body is *hers* and *hers alone* (to borrow
|>a phrase)?
|>
|>Now, sure, we don't have the auto-mama yet, BUT
|>
|>We sure as hell have women's bodies.  And we sure as hell have women who
|>own their own bodies and who fully expect to exercise their rights over
|>their own selves.
|>
|>Currently, an abortion means the fetus dies.  And that's too bad.  But
|>surely you can't make a case for giving the fetus rights that NO OTHER
|>person has over the body of another person.
|>
You constantly ignore the fact that this fetus depends on the woman for
life....and since we don't have the auto-mama she has no "choice".

|>You would limit your examination to SEVERE physical harm, or death.
|>
Yes.

|>I'll point out that, in many cases, rape does not cause severe physical
|>harm or death, yet it's still an illegal thing, and women are not expected
|>simply to put up with it's inconvenience.  And this notion springs from
|>the same well as the abortion issue's autonomy argument.
|>
So there is a difference if she's raped? You just said it didn'y make a
difference....Do you, I, anyone have a right to say who lives and dies
just because their being around is an inconvience...of course the answer
is no.  Rape is an  unfortunate crime but the baby is not guilty and only
aborting it will add further to a crime that has already happened.

|>Ditto Kidnapping.
|>
|>>So now that we can kill anyone that uses something of another persons w/o
|>>their permission we may kill them...I think I'll go out and kill all the
|>>welfare recipients because they are using my money because I don't want
|>>them to...
|>
|>You *do* see a small difference between the living breathing corporeal
|>physical body of a woman and your inanimate, printed-by-the-goverment
|>spending money, don't you?
|>
No. If a fetus uses a woman's resources without permission she has a right
to kill the fetus and there by alieveate(sp?) the problem.
I have just as much right to kill welfare recipients because I have to pay
taxes(I have no choice or I can go to jail) and some of this money
goes to them.....If I kill them my resources won't be used against my will...
Understand now? Of course I don't think either of the cases should be legal
but they deal with the same unwanted use of resources.

|>You don't get to kill someone who is stealing your TV (except maybe in
|>Texas), either, but you sure as hell get to kill someone who is threatening
|>you physicially.  EVEN when you find out that they weren't threatening you
|>with death.  The death standard is not universally required for one to
|>defend oneself, specifically when one's *physical person* (versus one's
|>property) is involved.
|>
Don't you get it? This person is invading my privacy by taking money out of
my pocket without me having any say in the matter...Its about time I did
something and shot the bastard so his hand is taking my money so much.

--
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|