Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!mcnc!unc!fsks
From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal
Message-ID: <301@unc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 31-Mar-85 23:47:47 EST
Article-I.D.: unc.301
Posted: Sun Mar 31 23:47:47 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Apr-85 00:41:26 EST
References: <1330@decwrl.UUCP> <449@x.UUCP> <mit-eddi.3921>
Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lines: 24
Xref: watmath net.flame:9073 net.politics:8326
Summary: 

A previous posting (I don't remember whose it was) sarcasticly argued
that laws against abortion-clinic bombings violates our freedom.

In article <mit-eddi.3921> barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) replied:
>	Hey, if we start bombing abortion clinics, I have an even better idea:
>
>	LET'S BOMB CHURCHES!!!!!
>
>	After all, religion is a major cause ...
>	How many people have died because of religion as opposed to how many
>	fetuses are aborted?  Stop everything nasty.  Bomb a church today!

Mikki, I think you missed the irony intended.  The writer did not seriously
advocate legalizing abortion clinic bombings.  He was trying to emphasize
that if personal freedom is not restricted where it may harm others
(eg smoking indoors in public), then lawlessness results.

That is, if one considers a fetus as a person with full rights to protection
under the law, then consideration of the rights of the mother to control
of her own body must be balanced against concern for the rights of the fetus.

I guess some people have trouble recognizing sarcasm.

	Frank Silbermann