Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!ittatc!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I wonder why??
Message-ID: <1213@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 1-Oct-86 11:39:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: bunker.1213
Posted: Wed Oct  1 11:39:55 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 3-Oct-86 05:32:47 EDT
References: <888@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Reply-To: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Distribution: na
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 56

In article <888@ssc-vax.UUCP> gcc@ssc-vax.UUCP (Greg Croasdill [KSCA,GdS])
writes:

>Looking over the news that has passed through our site here, a great trend
>seems to appear.  Why is it that most of the pro comments are from females
>(the ones who are impregnated) and most of the anti comments are from males
>(the ones who impregnate).

Just nearsightedness on your part.  There are lots of pro-choice men, and
lots of pro-life women.  The net is hardly a representative sampling of
the world in general.  You are a counter-example to your own observation.

>Shouldn't dealings with/within one's own body
>be dealt with by the ones who are effected?

Rather, shouldn't both positions be evaluated on their merits, rather
than on who happens to hold them?

>Gentlemen, you can help to 
>produce an unwanted child and not be inconvienced by it, not have to feel the
>guilt of it, not have your body be invaded by an unwanted presence, not even
>know about it.

Abortion could make it even easier for a man to help produce an unwanted
child and not feel guilty about it.  "So what if you get pregnant?  Just
have an abortion."  Maybe that's why so many *men* are pro-choice -- it
lets them go about impregnating women without having to consider the
potential result.  And if the woman doesn't want an abortion, then that's
her choice, not the man's.

I really don't see how abortion has lessened the problem of irresponsible
men.  Nor do I see its relevance to whether the pro-choice or the
pro-life position is valid.

>Gee fair deal huh?  Don't you think if there was another
>alternative it would be taken?

I get it -- the pro-choice position is that there is no choice.

>Only in the last 50 years have most
>of the world's population been talked out of simply leaving unwanted
>children out to die of exposure. Boy that's so much more humane, and cheaper.

Sure, kill 'em before anyone sees 'em.  That's so much cleaner, and
cheaper.  Economics is one of the main arguments used in favor of abortion --
if it really were cheaper to "simply leave unwanted children out to die
of exposure," would you support that option also?  If not, then there
must be something more important than money.

Only in the last 100 years (or so) have most of the world's population
been talked out of holding slaves.  What has the age of an idea to do
with its validity?

(Stuff about South Africa totally irrelevant, and therefore deleted.)

Gary Samuelson