NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48037

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-15 | 5.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
From: [e-mail] (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: twisting (Thans for life)Read!
Summary: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!!!!!!!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Nov 92 20:25:46 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
     <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Lines: 112

[e-mail] writes:
 [in response to Scott Roby]

>Things like life of the mother, incest (which would cause death of the infant,
>and rape would still be allowed after laws were passed.  It is because many see
>these as 'abortions' that the issue has dragged on.

What the hell else ARE they?

>I wish that people would make up their mind about it.  People say "I don't
>think abortion is right, but I will allow it."  That is the biggest non-answer
>I have heard.  Are you for it or against it.

You're missing the point.  The issue is not whether I, personally,
believe abortion is right or wrong, but whether I'm going to allow women
to make their own decision in the matter.  I cannot get an abortion --
why should my opinion of abortion even matter?

>> And by stopping conception, you are taking away the potential for life.
>> This puts abortion in the same category as birth-control.  Removing
>> potential life.
>
>As you know I am a Christian and know that christians (real ones) do as our God
>says and saves sex for marriage.  It is a gift that we have abused.

Heil Gott, then.  Sheesh, can't let anyone think for themselves these
days...

More to the point, why do you automatically equate discussion of
contraception with premarital sex?  Married couples do use condoms, you
know, and many women are on the pill. (Horrors!)

>What an absurd statement?  You either kill or you don't.  Potential killing
>would be thinking about it.

Not according to your God, it wouldn't -- or have you forgotten that he
who looks on a woman with lust in his heart has committed adultery?

>> I never presume to speak for God.  People who do so worry me.
>
>God spoke on his own in the word. You should read it sometime.

The assumption that he hasn't is awfully arrogant.  Maybe he has and just
rejected it.  It's certainly possible.  Maybe he even learned the lessons
of tolerance so well that he doesn't feel a nearly pathological need for
everyone else to have the same beliefs he does.

>We need to help our children to grow up in a society that they can know what is
>right and what is wrong.

True enough.  That which is right hurts no one.  That which is wrong
hurts people.  Whether you think abortion is right or wrong depends on
whether or not you think the fetus is a person, and whether this
personhood is more or less important than the mother's rights.

>War is killing, isn't it?

War is quite a bit more than just killing.

>We were given the ability to do as we want, even against God, to have freedom.
>Isn't God great to give us the ability to hate him or the choice to live in
>him.

I don't hate God, I simply don't believe in God.  Hating that in which
you do not believe is wasting time.

(Note also that, if I'm reading this correctly, Ken says that to believe
in God you must give up your freedom.  Brr...)

>> Some, but not all.  Sorry, I don't remember the statistic.  I think you
>> would be surprised at the number of abortions inside marriage.  I am
>> still surprised at the divorce rate in modern America (my folks are
>> still morried).
>
>I know.  Staggering isn't it(divorse rate)?  That is why we need to help our
>kids to grow up with morals.

You know, I'm rapidly becoming offended by this.

I'm not divorced...I'm not even married, yet.  :-)  My parents are not
divorced, for which I am grateful.  However, my parents told me that to
continue a loveless marriage is a far greater sin than to get a divorce.
Do you now insinuate that my parents have taught me no morals?

>> I do not want someone to tell a woman she CAN'T have an abortion.
>
>Or can't kill or can't do drugs or ...

That's utter bull excrement.  (Well, actually, I don't especially want to
tell someone he can't do drugs, but that's hardly relevant to abortion.)
Being pro-choice on ONE issue doesn't imply being pro-choice on ALL
issues.  Just because I don't wish to tell women to risk their lives so
that their fetuses might live, I don't wish to tell mass murderers that
they're free to go and kill again.

>Much of religion is organized because there REALLY IS a God out there
>directing us.  A seperate nation.  One that is open to everyone.  Please
>consider it. Don't let our difference of opinion keep you out.

"A sep[a]rate nation??"  That's the most frightening thing I've heard you
say yet.  Am I alone in thinking that it's a short step from here to the
Master Race?

>Also, I don't think we should support a law only if it agrees with special
>interest groups such as planned parenthood.

Or the Catholic Church.  Or people who can't afford college.  Or young
children.  They're all special interest groups.

--
--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post
  [e-mail]                        would make even less sense.