Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccice6.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!wjh12!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!ccice6!daf
From: daf@ccice6.UUCP (Amphibian Defender)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Capital Punishment
Message-ID: <243@ccice6.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Nov-84 20:35:54 EST
Article-I.D.: ccice6.243
Posted: Fri Nov  9 20:35:54 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 11-Nov-84 20:07:41 EST
References: <576@ccice5.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: CCI Central Engineering, Rochester, NY
Lines: 56

> The replys that I have received to my original posting seem
> to mostly agree on one thing; state sanctioned murder (abortion)
> is wrong, while state sanctioned murder (capital punishment) is
> O.K.  Forgive me if I fail to see any reason here.  If murder is
> wrong, it is wrong.  The fact that it is murder for retribution
> can not be used as a valid argument to make it right.

Such a gross simplification of the opinions is best countered
with a highly unlikely scenario. Assume your 4 year old daughter
is being molested and tortured by knife wielding escaped rapists
and you own a shotgun used for hunting. Is it still true that
murder is wrong and can't be made right?

If it is not wrong to shoot the escaped rapist and retribution is
not a valid arguement, then it follows that you can now kill anyone
you please and it is not wrong.

Either that or your original statements are incorrect.

> This brings me to ask the question; What purpose does this news
> group serve?  (Other than using up valuable disk space at this
> site)  The "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" (who picks these stupid
> names anyway?) state their cases as fact and neither side convinces
> the other of anything.  There is at least occasional movement on
> the other "hard-headed" nets (e.g. politics, religion, philosophy).

The disk space at your site is valuable.
This news group uses up the disk space.
You are not sure of this news groups purpose.

Yet you posted this article.

It seems to me that your intent must be to use up valuable disk space.
This makes your article much easier to understand, at first I made
the mistake of thinking you were trying to make a rational point.

> I realize that this is a very explosive issue, as some abortion
> clinics have literally found out.  But quoting Bible passages or
> "Women's Rights" doctrine is not going to do anything but put most
> people off to what you have to say.  I also realize that this type
> of view will not be popular with all the prolific writers out there.
> But until this newsgroup starts to investigate all the facets of
> this issue, instead of just shouting "you're damned" or "it's my
> body and I'll do what I want too with it", I think I'll find a
> more constructive use for my time.

If normal posters are profilic writers, what are you?
I would guess you are an insanely verbose, rambling typist.

> Catch you all later on some future circuit of the dial.

Hopefully you are leaving to take either a writing or
logic course.


			  An Observer