Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-spice!tdn
From: tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: \"Words mean what I pay them to mean . . .\"
Message-ID: <408@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 04:33:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-s.408
Posted: Thu Aug  1 04:33:55 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 09:39:37 EDT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 33

> 4) The father's right to procreate

Where does this come from?  And what gives you the right to say that 'anti-
abortion people' place this *anywhere* in the precedence?  It seems to me
that the strict ordering

    1) The woman's right to continue living

    2) The fetus's right to continue living

    3) The woman's right to remove things from her body which she
       doesn't want inside of it

roughly describes the legal ordering that most pro-life people are working
towards ("roughly" because some people make an exception for rape/incest).

I guess that I wouldn't be too surprised to learn of a Supreme Court ruling
decreeing the 'right to procreation', given that the Supreme Court has also
decreed at various times that:

    - Northern states must help return escaped slaves to the South
    - Separate-but-equal is Constitutional
    - Abortion is a right
    - High school students have little or no protection against
      arbitrary search and seizure

I get the impression from your posts that you think the world is divided
entirely into pro-feminist and anti-women groups, with nobody in-between.
I don't like a lot of feminist/leftist politics, but neither do I go for
this 'right to procreate' nonsense.

                                        -- Thomas Newton
                                           Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA