Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!oleg
From: cc@locus.ucla.edu (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Best for Others?
Message-ID: <2061@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 12-Oct-86 01:28:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: curly.2061
Posted: Sun Oct 12 01:28:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Oct-86 17:30:25 EDT
References: <2710@burdvax.UUCP> <5833@ut-sally.UUCP>
Reply-To: oleg@OACVAX.BITNET (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: Citizens' Committee to Stop Continental Drift
Lines: 104
Keywords: abortion morals
Summary: This is going straight to talk.abortion, folks!
Xref: ucbvax talk.religion.misc:522 talk.abortion:134

In article <686@cal-asd.fluke.UUCP> ptl@cal-asd.UUCP (Mike Andrews) writes:
>In article <1976@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> oleg%OACVAX.BITNET writes:
>>... Talk.abortion is a place to discuss abortion issues.
>If what you said was meant to be true, why then did the remainder of
>your article deal strictly with abortion and your pro-choice stance.

You are right, I should have at least set the followup field properly.
Apologies. This article gets x-posted to talk.abortion and will be
"Followup"ed to talk.abortion only.

>Faith in God requires facing this serious moral question, anywhere.

Well, THAT is a proper thing to discuss in this news group. I do not
accept the existance of your God and therefore do not concern myself
with having to do something because of "faith".

>With todays scientific abilities, the laws cannot keep up.  There is a
>cutoff of x number of weeks, beyond which a baby is considered not
>abortable.  Babies have lived that were born before the cutoff date.
>Should the laws be continually updated, for every baby born before
>a new cutoff date; or will people realize the baby is a little people.

You want to keep the "removed" fetuses alive? Be my guest! You can start
hanging around the Family Planning Centers ("abortion clinics" in 
"pro-life" terminology) and offering to the women who visit it to take
over their motherly functions for them. A small financial reward would
surely provide you with more fetuses than your body could support.

Or do you want to see statistics on the number of babies that grow up
NORMAL (i.e. not severely physically and brain damaged), or even SURVIVED
these very premature births.

Or do you need me to tell you that it COSTS LOTS OF MONEY to provide
the care for premature babies, money most people do not have???

Or do you need me to tell you that if YOU want not to have an abortion NOBODY
will force you to have one??? 

>>... The view of "pro-life" is that a life of a fetus
>>is more important than needs and wants of a woman who is sentenced to 
>>nurture it within her body and then for 18-20 years as a dependent.
>
>When a parent becomes too old to care for him/her self - you then
>believe they too are an unwanted burden which makes it acceptable
>for them to be killed.  Simply because they would depend on you?

You are either an idiot or you are VERY naive. There are plenty of examples
of old people being killed by neglect and abuse in retirement houses. Their
children and relatives get rid of them and forget them completely. So much
for old people analogy.

You do not seem to realize that most human beings have emotions, likes, loves
and loyalties of other human beings associated with them, that the lives 
of these human beings are very closely interwoven by emotional strings with
lives of other people -- a death of one person in this network of relationships
resonates through the entire network, ringing every node in it, causing grief,
sorrow, remorse. THAT is a true value, a true definition of a human being --
people are NOTHING without love and care of their fellow human beings.

There are very few people who have these emotional ties with a fetus. A wanted 
future-child has very strong ones, an unwanted one has negative ones. The
people who are closest and most often the only ones linked to the unborn
child's life are the parents. If THEY do not want the baby -- WHAT RIGHT IS IT
OF YOURS TO TELL THEM WHAT TO DO?! It is not YOUR PLACE TO MAKE DEMANDS!

>>... The view of "pro-life" is that the State, governed by the inane logic
>>of applying shoddy interpretations of nebulous allusions of a particular
>>religious book of questionable authenticity, has a right to force women
>>to endanger their lives against their will.
>The current law does not reflect Christian belief in the sanctity of life.
>Every law is made with someone's idea of moral right and wrong.  There
>is no avoiding it.

Good thing too! You presume to speak for all Xtians. Yet there are plenty
of Xtians who do not extend this alleged sanctity of life upon a fetus!

>Then go another step and put in the
>words long term sickness, quadraplegic, ... - another possible direction
>things can go.

Do not attempt to cloud the issue! A local court case of a quadruplegic
woman, who practically lived on pain killers and just wanted to have the
doctors let her die,  is  still too fresh in my memory. I wish you never 
have to face a situation in which either you will be begging someone to 
kill you to end your suffering, or someone close to you was writhing in
pain for months or years, while you held their death and a release from
pain in your hands!

>The women who have already had abortions suffer, too.  Condemning them
>is equal to condemning the baby.  A woman I know recently had an
>abortion, and she is now in much mental pain.  She doesn't need my
>judgment or yours, she needs our love, God's unconditional love.
>Christians must love even pro-choice advocates.  If you can't, then think
>of them as your enemies, and God's *command* to love our enemies takes over.

You God's "*command*" means nothing to me. If He is displeased about my
attitude -- let Him tell me so. Not that I accept your God's existance.

As for "condemning" women who had abortions: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?!
You are REALLY confused, my opponent: PRO-CHOICE means people have choices,
and whatever those choices are THEY ARE CHOICES OF THOSE PEOPLE and are
not a subject of judgement by strangers.

					Oleg Kiselev, HASA "A" division