Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site 3comvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
From: michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Reply in mail, please...
Message-ID: <210@3comvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Sep-85 17:52:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: 3comvax.210
Posted: Wed Sep  4 17:52:05 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Sep-85 02:48:26 EDT
References: <134@graffiti.UUCP>
Organization: 3Com Corp; Mountain View, CA
Lines: 16

[line eater fodder]

Peter Da Silva:  
> 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 carrying a pregnancy to term is much *more*
dangerous than an abortion is to the life and health of the mother.  

----------------
Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation
(415) 960-9367
..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm