Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-edu1!hua
From: hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: re: "Correlation? Absolutely." ... say what?!
Message-ID: <242@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 18-Apr-85 01:44:22 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-e.242
Posted: Thu Apr 18 01:44:22 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Apr-85 03:31:58 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 71

___________________________________________________________________

> { From: bmt@we53.UUCP }
> 
> The same attitude results both in killing unborn children and  in
> abusing born ones.

I.  How about some statistics, rather than just some grandiose
    assertions?!

II. Isn't it better to kill an unborn child than to put it through
    the misery of abuse later?  If I were forced to rear a child
    because the government said I could not abort it, that child
    would become the symbol of the tyranny of the government.  I
    might very well abuse it.  On the other hand, if I am allowed
    to rear a child when I choose to, the child becomes a beautiful
    gift of nature.  I would say that an anti-abortion law would be
    worse for a child if its existence was not planned.

> This is the same attitude that has been chil-
> lingly displayed, without apology or remorse, by some of you  who
> feel, as I said in a previous article, that
>
> "it's my right and I don't give a damn who it hurts!"

Do you really think that women who have abortions "don't give a
damn who it hurts"?  How about the posts awhile ago that showed
that a lot of women who have abortions go through emotional hell
afterwards?!

> The real issues are coming out, aren't they?  You are now  saying
> what  I have been saying, but the abortionists' PR has been deny-
> ing - that if I want a baby killed, I don't care what anyone else
> says,  it's  my  right.

It is hardly as nonchalant as you so portrayed.  No one has been
promoting abortion.  Abortion is advertised as a solution (not the
only one) to an unwanted pregnancy.  Of course, birth control has
also been advertised, and I think it ought to be stressed as the
single most important factor in preventing unwanted pregnancies.
Prevention is the key.  On the other hand, doctors should always
be around if vitamins and exercise don't do their jobs ...

> The courts have been saying it too.  The
> courts are not pro-choice, they are pro-dead-baby.

Hardly.  They are pro-choice-in-the-first-trimester.  You couldn't
substantiate your statement if you life depended upon it.  Your
"evidence" below are nothing but rhetorically distorted rehashing
of the law.  If the courts are "pro-dead-baby" as you said, they
would have granted abortion rights even AFTER birth.  "pro-dead-
baby"?  You are out of your mind! ...

> Recent  court
> decisions  have  upheld  ANYONE's  right  to a dead baby.  If the
> mother wants an abortion and the  father  doesn't,  the  mother's
> right  is  upheld.  If the father wants his child aborted and the
> mother doesn't, the father's rights are upheld.  If the mother is
> a  minor and wants an abortion and her parents don't, the minor's
> rights are upheld.  If the mother is a minor and the parents want
> the baby aborted and she doesn't, the parents' rights are upheld.
> So please stop the lying about being "pro-choice".  You're NOT.

... The law simply says that you may choose to have an abortion in
the first trimester.  It does not say that you MUST have an abortion.
The courts are certainly pro-choice.
___________________________________________________________________

Live long and prosper.

Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }