NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/talk/abortion/35778

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-08 | 3.9 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35778 alt.abortion.inequity:3658
Path: sparky!uunet!psgrain!ee.und.ac.za!hippo!ucthpx!uctvax.uct.ac.za!wnljam01
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because:
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:50:42 +0200
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Cape Town
Lines: 72

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Charles Perez) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Perez) writes:
>>>
>>>The "coat-hanger argument" (that laws against abortion drive women with
>>>unwanted pregnancies to risk their lives using unsafe methods of aborting)
>>>is a valid argument against any anti-abortion legislation short of
>>>defining abortion as murder.
>>
>>Which means, since pro-lifers are working to ensure that it is defined as
>>murder, that the entire premise for this argument of yours, is probably not
>>worth reading.
>
> If they believe it is murder, why do many of them want to permit it in
> cases of rape or incest? Murder is murder, right?
>
>>
>>>If abortion is murder, there can be no compromising the fetus's rights.
>>>If it is not murder, there can be no disregarding the deaths of women from
>>>back-alley abortions that result when abortion is proscribed. Any
>>>"compelling state interest" must be weighed against *all* of the
>>>negative consequences of restrictive legislation.
>>
>>Well, using drugs is not murder instantly, but we ban it and we live with
>>the consequences of illegal drug use, every day.
>
> *Should* we, though? Personally, *I* don't ban drug, nor do I want
> to see them banned.
>
>>Tell the American people that you'd consistently apply this reasoning to
>>issues outside of abortion - like drugs.
>>
>>Then, forget any hopes you might have of being elected to any office.
>
> Popular opinion doesn't make *anything* right.
>
>>While
>>you're at it, join the Jerry Brown or Bill "Don't Inhale" Clinton Club.
>
> Who says *I* want to do drugs, just because I don't want them
> criminalized? Many things *I* find distasteful I nonetheless wouldn't
> want to see banned.
>
>>===============================================================================
>>Question: If you don't have truck bombs and thousands of fanatics to
>>      sacrifice their lives and drive them, how do you scare a
>>      nation into giving in to your demands?
>>
>>Answer:   Buy coat hangers and encourage women to kill themselves
>>      with them and call yourself "pro-choice".
>
> As if the only reason a woman died by a coat hanger is because some
> pro-choicer encouraged her to.
>
> Stick to facts, don't make yourself look ridiculous trying to set up
> a straw man.
>
>
> --
> ==========================================================================
> That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
> to your context; that's where its root lies.  - Charles Perez
> ==========================================================================

Rubbish!  Most medical doctors in the U.S. agree with the ex (~1986) U.S.
surgeon general- C.Everret Koop - there is a new human being from conception.
Sure; the baby is dependent on the mother for 9 months for nourishment and a
protective environment.  Does this make it sub-human?!  Most people who choose to
kill their pre-born children do so because it makes life easier for them.  Life
would certainly be easier if we could kill everyone who makes it difficult for
us - but then some people might not agree to being murdered without some sort
of fight!