Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sdccs6.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix192
From: ix192@sdccs6.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: right to life vs. reality
Message-ID: <1287@sdccs6.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Mar-84 16:22:54 EST
Article-I.D.: sdccs6.1287
Posted: Sun Mar 25 16:22:54 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Mar-84 01:06:47 EST
References: <2253@harpo.UUCP>
Organization: Hacker's Haven, U.C. San Diego
Lines: 69

[]

>From ...harpo!jrl

>  Egnough of this horsechips. Let's get down to some basics.

	If we sit around and call eachother or our article's names, we'll
	never get anything done!

>    1) A human being does not exist until it is able to draw its
>       own breath. 

Very, very debatable!!!  And unimportant, I believe.  You are trying to win
off a technicality, saying that we aren't killing anything human.  This isn't
some court where there is a case to be won.  There's a point to be won, but
not off some technicality - you 'win' by convincing others.  Technicalities
will win a case in court, but the opposing side (and some to the supporting)
will be completely unsatisfied.  Net.abortion isn't a court where abortion is
in for a once-and-only trial, so technicalities won't work in here.  People
need to be convinced, not tricked by drawing a line and saying "right" and
"wrong".  And unless you can get everyone in the net to draw the same line,
you won't win on a techincality.

>    2) We live in an advanced society with many tools. Abortion is one
>       of them. YOU choose to use or ignore this tool.

Interesting way of putting it.  I guess capitol punishment is a world tool
to help with criminals, that the US is ignoring?  But again, some tools
(like nukes in small wars) are considered too dangerous to be useful.  I
like the indication of freedom, however.

>    3) People who are forced to have children (by whatever means) will
>       never forget it and hence their child will know it.

True.  Plus their live's will be thrown for a loop for a while (the time
depending on the parent's parents & finantial status & etc.), plus it
might ruin the relationship, plus plus plus.  If people don't want something,
I don't see why they should have to.  I would think that the parents have a
more valuable opinion than the fetus (I would assume it wanted to live).

>    4) Most pro-lifers are affluent middle class WASPS, who never
>       stop to realize the emotional and economic inpact of raising
>       a unwanted child. 

I donno about that.  If you really want to argue pure theory, don't put any
physical limitations on the people you're arguing with.

>	If the pro-lifers are so damn concerned about human life, how come none
>	of them suggest the banning of tobacco products, nuclear weapons and 
>	dumping of industrial waste in residental neighborhoods, or that all
>	capital spent on weapons research be redirected towards agriculture
>	and medical inprovements in third world countries. Does it make sense
>	to develop weapons that they hope will never be used ? 

See?  You're putting limits on people again!  What wins abortion for one people
has to win (work?) for all the others.  People are people, with all their
options and choices and beliefs in life.  They are entitled to them, and you
are entitled to try to change them, but assuming that because of one opinon
they are the same in another subject is rather stupid.  I happen to be for
abortion, but that doesn't have anything to do with my opinions on nuclear 
weapons or smoking or life in third-world countries.  The only thing you
know about pro-lifers is that they generally don't support abortion.  For all
you know, their (and our) opinions on nuclear war or famine or on just anything
else have just as much to do with abortion as they do with Cuban zukini.

				   Kenn the Kenf
				...!sdcsvax!kenn
				...!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix192
				...!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!kenn