Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!ittvax!anderson
From: anderson@ittvax.UUCP (Scott Anderson)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: slaves analogy
Message-ID: <1375@ittvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Apr-84 13:39:41 EST
Article-I.D.: ittvax.1375
Posted: Thu Apr 12 13:39:41 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Apr-84 20:55:38 EST
Lines: 35

I have many objections to Gerald Owens' (gatech!owens) analogy of the
violation of the rights of one set of people (blacks) by allowing
slavery with the violation of the rights of another set of ?people?
(fetuses) by allowing abortion (That's as fair a summary as I can
manage).  I will only mention one factual one here..

He says:


      The doctor: No abortion, no fee.

      ...

      The Judge:  Well, The fetus can't hire a lawyer, obviously.
		  Civil rights violated??  Is it human??  Hmm, a good
		  question.  I'll have to ask a few doctors (Now, guess
		  who is consulted.  No peeking, only one guess.
		  AWWW!!  You got it!! :-)


If you think that the fee for an abortion is relevant to a doctor's
decision, you're way off. Pregnancy and child-rearing are a continuous
cycle of trips to the doctor.  Kids generate more money for doctors
than any other group except for the very old (I'm guessing here--but
I think I'm right.)  If the doctors REALLY wanted to make money, they'd
outlaw abortions and all go into OB/GYN and pediatrics.

You're also assuming that doctors only make decisions based on money.
For slave traders, that might be fair, but doctors are, for the most
part, kind loving people who want to relieve suffering, pain, disease,
etc.  (If you disagree, then you must've had some terrible doctors
in your life.)

Scott D. Anderson
decvax!ittvax!anderson