Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: My Abortion Views Message-ID: <897@ut-ngp.UUCP> Date: Fri, 31-Aug-84 16:10:29 EDT Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.897 Posted: Fri Aug 31 16:10:29 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 3-Sep-84 19:55:42 EDT References: <988@pyuxa.UUCP> Organization: Comp. Center, Univ. of Texas at Austin Lines: 35 > These > are people who can damn well afford to support a child but are > so damn selfish and self-centered that they would rather opt for > killing and murder. > ... > Three hundred dollars will buy a hell of a > lot of cheap birth control so you can have both. Using abortion > as a birth control method by those who seem well able to afford > other means is criminal and just plain stupid. OK, so what do you think people should do who use preventionary birth control methods which fail on them? (Yes, Otis, sometimes even all of of two or three methods will fail simultaneously!) Some of these people already have several kids. There is not necessarily "room for one more." Who in the h**l are you to allocate other people's resources for them anyway? (Sounds sort of like a flaming liberal to me! :-)) How do you get off telling people to just raise the kid anyway?! > Abortion has > not reduced the birth rate among the poor, but it sure as hell > has done a job on the rate for the well off. > T. C. Wheeler So what?! If you want to pay for abortions for poor women, you will not be stopped. (At least not by me!) -- Continuing to take anti-choice arguments with a large grain of ":-)", I remain the "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" [the CARTOON smurfs, Mr. Arndt!] (Ken Montgomery) ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]