NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/abortion/55306

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-11 | 3.4 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55306 talk.religion.misc:25900 alt.atheism:25728
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: None worth mentioning.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 04:44:22 GMT
Lines: 52

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>Abortion is not a passive act.  It is an act of violence and aggression.
>>>The government should outlaw murder.  The woman who has an abortion does not
>>>just decide not to carry her child in her body.  She actually has her child
>>>killed.
>>>
>>Nonsense. She has a fetus removed from her body. That it dies is
>>simply a fact of it's inability to survive as anything other than a
>>parasite, at this stage.
>
>How many abortions are performed simply by removing the child from the womb
>without harming it?  What about "vaccumming" and saline abortions?
>
Look up your own statistics. From the abysmall lack of knowledge wrt
abortion procedures you are showing, you could certainly stand to do a
little research into the subject.

>>>There is a serious inconsistency in government policy.  It is illegal for a
>>>mother to abandon her child, or to neglect him in some other way.  One
>>>can even be arrested for not feeding one's horses in this country.
>>>Generally, parents have a legal responsiblility to their children.  If mothers
>>>and fathers can legally be held responsible to use their bodies to care for
>>>their children, then mothers should legally be held responsible to use
>>>their bodies to protect their children in the womb.
>>>
>>No mother or father is required to use their body to care for their
>>children. They are free to provide care via a nanny, grandma, sitter,
>>or adoptioni agency. Requiring them to use their bodies would mean
>>they could be forced to donate bllod/tissues/organs to the child. This
>>is not true.
>
>Requiring the use of the body need not require blood/tissue/organs.
>If you provide a nanny/grandma/sitter you have to use your body to dial the
>phone, talk to the sitter, sign the check, etc.
>
None of which is required, since they are, as  I mentioned, and you
ignored, free to give up their children if they choose. The care and
feeding of a fetus requires 100% of the time that the woman donate the
use of her (limited) bodily resources. You advocate removing her right
to avoid this donation of her body. Unless you also support
legislation to force the donations of blood/tissues/organs, you are
being quite inconsistent.
Could it be because you would be *personally* affected by those
requirements, while you will never have to deal with abortion
personally?

--
                  Mark Cochran          [e-mail]
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.