Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!cs111olg
From: cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
Message-ID: <9793@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 11-Mar-86 23:00:24 EST
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.9793
Posted: Tue Mar 11 23:00:24 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Mar-86 00:12:05 EST
References: <11560@watnot.UUCP> <9534@ucla-cs.ARPA> <610@bunkerb.UUCP>
Reply-To: cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev (the student incarnation))
Distribution: na
Organization: The Land Of Mental Midgets
Lines: 88

In article <610@bunkerb.UUCP> garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:
>>Marriage is entered into by MUTUAL CONSENT and can be annulled when
>>either of the partners is not satisfied by the relationship (or at 
>>least it is so in most civilized countries).
>
>Actually, I think that the above attitude towards marriage is all too
>casual -- it should be more difficult to get married and to get a
>divorce than it is.  The lack of commitment in such an attitude is
>not civilized at all (you would have us accept your notion of what
>is and is not "civilized", of course).

Oh, REALLY? And why is that? By what law (or, rather, by WHO's law)
is it that a bad marriage should be preserved??? "'Til death do us
part" or something like that? Aren't you pushing according your
personal tastes on us, Gary?

>>>Further, some rights are present *in time*.  A school is not
>>>considered as wrong to require that students pursue their happiness at
>>>a later time.  The mother will regain her fullest ability to pursue
>>>her happiness in time--nothing is lost.
>
>>Garbage! "In time" in this case is when the kids graduate high school.
>>To effectively parent a child BOTH parents have to spend AS MUCH TIME
>>AS POSSIBLE with the kids. In case of a single mother (or even worse a 
>>single teenage underpriveleged mother) she has to work to feed herself
>>and her child. No possibility of getting a good education or gaining
>>a useful set of skills that would allow her to get a decent job. No 
>>possibility of spending ENOUGH time with her kid. All her plans ruined.
>>Her life crippled. And most people will never forgive their kids for 
>>ruining their lives ("I could have been SOMEBODY!")
>
>Garbage yourself.  You have totally ignored the possibility that
>the child could be placed for adoption.  You have ignored the
>possibility that the mother might decide that she wanted to keep
>the child.  You have implied that being a mother is being a NOBODY.
>
>And such appeals to emotion from someone who claims to be strictly
>rational: "underprivileged...no possibility...to get a decent job...
>*ALL* her plans ruined...crippled...never forgive...'I could have
>been SOMEBODY'"  (Being a mother is being a NOBODY?)

Garabage back on YOU! An UNWANTED *ANYTHING* is bad!!! Being a 
highly paid executive AGAINST YOUR WILL AND IN DETRIMENT TO YOU
is being a NOBODY, when what YOU want to do is to spend your days
meditating and counting beads. Or gardening.  Or working iron.
Or being a mother.

The key here is WANTING to.

>Besides, more than a decade after abortion on demand became
>the law of the land would suggest that there are very few "unwanted"
>children born any more.  So which social problems has abortion on
>demand alleviated?

You are mis-guided. Sure, there are more abortions performed. Not 
EVERYBODY has them. Not EVERYBODY can AFFORD them. Not EVERYBODY KNOWS
better to have them.

>>>In the meantime, who is harmed?
>>Both the mother and the unwanted child will be harmed if the child is 
>>born.
>Now you are claiming that abortion is actually doing the aborted child a
>favor.  "You wouldn't have enjoyed life anyway, so I am going to kill
>you."  Perhaps we should try an old shoe on a new foot:  If you really
>are concerned about the child, why don't *you* give him or her a good
>home?  (And yes, my wife and I have talked about this and are willing

There IS NO CHILD! There is a FETUS! and I *DON'T* care what happens to
an UNBORN FETUS. I *CARE* about the woman who's life is going to be
crippled. I am concerned that an unwanted child will not grow up to
be beneficial to this society and will be a detrement to me.
(Somehow it seems Peter Z. has made a similar statement just recently)

>and able to do so.  So are lots of other people -- the waiting list to
>adopt babies is several years long in many (most?) places in this country.
>We are also willing to house, if needed, an unmarried pregnant woman,
>to get her to refrain from getting an abortion.)

Ah, gee Gary! We have over 50,000 (???) kids here in California who need
to be adopted... You want them? Contact the California adoption 
organizations (your local ones will probably have addressess).

Only, you see Gary, most of those kids are ether Hispanic, or Black,
or have some mental or physical defects, or are "problem kids"...

Want them?! Stop whining about the "waiting lists" and help solve the
problem!
				Oleg Kiselev