Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!psuvax!psuvm%v6m
From: psuvm%v6m@psuvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: 
Message-ID: <769@psuvm.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Mar-84 21:10:37 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvm.769
Posted: Tue Mar 27 21:10:37 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Mar-84 07:23:38 EST
Lines: 31

I apologize for having the first character clipped off of all the lines.


Here is another version.

1. Kenn the Kenf is wrong on answering his on problem.  I really liked the
   answer given of shooting the bureaucrat.  I would categorize the respondent
   as "fullfilling parental obligation to defend the family".  As a side note
   this is a good reason to insist on the right to keep arms..but I digress.

2. Now.. as I undestand the PRO-Choice groups they would not make this a
   pro-choice issue.  After all the baby is alive the choice was made.  I'm
   willing to believe that they would protest but it would be from other
   ethical positions.

3. The PRO-LIFE camp could make this an issue.  Basically we could say
   "I told you so..they're coming to get you".  But our fundamental criticism
    is not anti-abortion, since the baby is alive.  It is one of when a life
    is forfeited. PAX CHRISTI ilk might say never (as I understand their
    position).  More conservative types would not say never..but this is a case
    where the government is committing an atrocity. So use what force is
    necessary.

4.  We had a problem like this in PSU.AI.ETHICS and my rebuttal is applicable.
    Basically if you make a choice then you have murdered the child which you
    choose.  The parent must do all in his reasonable abilities to save BOTH.
    The parent may even die trying, but it is part of the duty of parenthood.

5.  Your move Kenn.....

                            Marchionni  V6M@PSUVM  through BITNET