Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site loral.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdccs6!loral!simard
From: simard@loral.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: The existence of net.abortion proves abortion should be legal
Message-ID: <455@loral.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-Aug-84 13:05:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: loral.455
Posted: Tue Aug 28 13:05:39 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Aug-84 11:27:30 EDT
References: <181@looking.UUCP>
Organization: Loral Instrumentation, San Diego, CA
Lines: 41

>Now you'll note I didn't say it proves that abortion is good or bad,
>simply that it should be legal.
>
>The existence of net.abortion proves one thing.  That there is a large
>controversy over the issue.  It shows there are two large camps on either
>side, with some sitting in the middle.  It shows plainly that the issues
>involved are intangible and highly subject to debate.
>
>Now the maxim of a free society is to err on the side of freedom in a
>situation can can't be clearly decided.  No matter how much one side may
>claim it, the issue isn't "obvious."

If we were talking about something confined to adult human experience,
I might agree.  But to "err on the side of freedom" in this case is
to accept the notion of the freedom to live, to exist.  Such a position
precludes abortion.

It seems to me that the reason a person convicted of a crime and sentenced
to death is not led immediately from the courtroom to the execution
site (which would be least costly, not doubt) but instead usually
lanugishes on Death Row somewhere for a long time is the awesome burden
of assuring that the person is not the victim of a mistaken verdict.
Time is allowed for evidence of such to surface and be presented. Such
is the respect we, as a civilization, afford the idea of human life.
Charles Manson, and those of his followers still loyal to him, are
not particularly welcome in open society, and they have never contested
the accusations against them.  Yet they are still alive.  If we are willing
to extend the benefit of the doubt to such as they to preserve our ideal
of respecting life, why do we so casually deny the same "error on the side
of freedom" to the unborn, guilty of nothing but that of which we all
are: existing?



-- 
[     I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet     ]

Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simard