Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!sophie
From: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Reply in mail, please...
Message-ID: <1972@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Sep-85 10:10:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.1972
Posted: Wed Sep  4 10:10:07 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Sep-85 11:10:04 EDT
References: <134@graffiti.UUCP> <296@gcc-bill.ARPA>
Reply-To: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 11
Summary: 

In article <134@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>Why hasn't anybody opposed abortion on the grounds that it is a dangerous
>>operation for the mother that can irreparably damage her cervix and uterus?
>>I haven't seen anybody using this argument, despite the fact that it has a
>>great deal more validity than the ones I've seen people using.

Probably because childbirth can also irreparably damage her cervix and
uterus, so what difference does it make?
-- 
Sophie Quigley
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie