Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ptsfa!pyramid!pyrnj!rutgers!codas!karthur
From: karthur@codas.att.com (Kurt_R_Arthur)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: Risks ( was: Re: ABORTION  AIDS  CONNECTION)
Message-ID: <1571@codas.att.com>
Date: 15 Jan 88 20:52:18 GMT
References: <8791@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T, Altamonte Springs, FL
Lines: 96

In article <8791@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> oconnor@sunray.steinmetz (Dennis M. O'Connor) writes:
> 
> An article by morrow@topaz.rutgers.edu (John Morrow) says:
> :-( In article <8646@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> sunray!oconnor@steinmetz.UUCP writes:
> :-( >2. According to the data that is included in with my wife's
> :-( >   birth control pills ( used to be Lo-Overal or something ),
> :-( >   based on deaths per 100,000 women ( no arguments about
> :-( >   the fetus : that's NOT what Richy talked about ), abortion
> :-( >   in the US is safer than carrying the baby to term. It's
> :-( >   also safer than Birth Control Pills, safer than IUDs,
> :-( >   safer than condoms and safer than diaphrams. IN fact,
> :-( >   the only thing safer than abortion ( except I imagine
> :-( >   total abstinence ) is :
> :-( >
> :-( >    Using a condom or diaphram AND having an abortion if
> :-( >   the condom or diaphram fails to prevent pregnancy.
> :-( 
> :-( Dangers of abortion and why the death figures are so low...
> :-( [all quotes from Willke, J. C.,_Abortion Questions And Answers_, Hayes
> :-( Publishing Company, Inc., 6304 Hamilton Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio, 45224,
> :-( (c)1985.
> 
> Who is this author ? Not an M.D. obviously. Probably another
> anti-choice person with an axe to grind. Can you say "biased" ?
> I knew you could.
> 
FACT: Dr. J.C. Wilke is an MD/OB-GYN who was instrumental in organizing various
pro-choice organizations (including I believe, NARAL) and at one time operated
the largest abortion clinic in the country.  In the late 1970's Dr. Wilke had
a change of heart and has actively fought abortion and is now president of the
National Right to Life Committee.  He was also instrumental in the production
of "Silent Scream", a video of an actual abortion (OPINION: I don't know how
ANYONE can watch "Silent Scream" and not believe abortion is the killing of a
human being: not blob of cells, not parasite, but a small CHILD).  Can you 
say "the previous poster has no idea what he's talking about"? I knew
you could!

[ a WHOLE BUNCH of supposed point-by-point rebuttals, which really are a morass
of denial, desparaging of printed authority and obsenities directed as personal
attacks on the previous poster. ]

The points brought up by the previous poster are relevant in that they do point
out risks and costs to both the victims of abortion and the public at large. 
These risks are usually ignored by the proponents of abortion precisely because
they can make the difference in opinion for someone 'on the fence'.  

NEW OPINIONS:

In my opinion, abortion is wrong.  It is the killing of a young human usually
for the convenience of the mother (I reiterate: usually) and has no moral
justification in favor of it, but a lot of justification for its prohibition.

The availability and ingraining of abortion as as an everyday occurance has
trivialized life for all.  Many postings in this forum and in the media at
large have said (to the effect) "It's a parasite on the mother and as such,
hers to dispose of as she wishes, without consultation with the father or
anyone else".  It is my opinion that this argument indangers ANYONE who is
dependent upon another for life: the just-born, the old, the handicapped, and
others.  It is just a short step from killing an innocent unborn to killing
the terminally ill to killing anyone for convienence.  Euthanasia is a fact
of life: witness the recent killing of a deformed infant by his father in
Chicago,  the murder of a woman with Altsheimer's (sp?) by her husband, and 
others.

Although most (all?) of the pro-choicers will disagree,  I feel that within
the next 40-50 years the main justification for abortion (ie, the fetus is not
a person) will be used to justify successively the infirm, the handicapped,
ind then extermination of one or more groups of people who presently are safe.
These groups could be the poor, Jews, the Blacks, Catholics, Indians, or
whatever.  In Nazi Germany Jews, Gypsies, and other ethnic groups were declared
as 'less than human', thus the horror of the Holocaust was enabled because to
many, the killing these groups was no different than killing stray animals in a
dog pound.  This 'dehumanizing' of groups is not relegated to the past: look at
the atrocities of Pol Pot, the Soviets, the Sandanistas, and a myriad of
African states.

Many people are now probably saying 'it can't happen here', but I see a 
posting on this network from the wharf rat comparing an adult, a chimp, and an
infant, and the infant gets the short end of the stick.  This attitude is not
uncommon, and frankly, scares the hell out of me.

There is a famous poem (which I am NOT quoting) to the effect of:

	They came for the Jews, and I did nothing,
		because I'm not a Jew.
	They came for the Gypsies, & I did nothing,
		because I'm not a Gypsy.
	They came for the Catholics, & I did nothing,
		because I'm not Catholic.
	Then they came for me.
		And there was no one left to help me.

And above anything else, that's why I'm against abortion.


Kurt Arthur