home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11266 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show:86 talk.abortion:53874
- Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
- From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
- Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
- Message-ID: <1993Jan2.204902.8667@rotag.mi.org>
- Organization: Who, me???
- References: <C00Az1.464@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <29DEC92.16524788@vax.clarku.edu> <C01u1B.7H9@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 20:49:02 GMT
- Lines: 61
-
- In article <C01u1B.7H9@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
- >hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
- >
- >>In a previous article, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu wrote:
- >>>
- >>>The resistance you hear from "us" concerning social programs is not
- >>>a result of our lack of respect or concern for human life, rather it is
- >>>from the opposite, our concern for human life. Creating a welfare state
- >>>inhibits people's belief in themselves, promotes and reinforces their
- >>>feelings of helplessness rather than encouraging the desire to change their
- >>>situation by themselves, and punishes those who have accepted the
- >>>responsibility for their own destiny (ie. people who work).
- >
- >>Really, those poor, homeless, and hungry children should just take
- >>responsibility for their lives and find a job. Funding programs such as
- >>WIC will just encourage infants and children to be lazy bums.
- >
- >Those poor, homeless and hungry children should have had parents responsible
- >enough to realize they couldn't afford to feed children. If they could
- >have controlled their hormones there wouldn't be a problem.
-
- It is far more realistic to subsidize abortion, maybe even to incentivize it,
- than to rely on people "controlling their hormones", and it achieves the same
- economic result, i.e. reduction of the birth rate among poor people.
-
- >You tell me which
- >is the worse crime, society refusing to pay deadbeats or deadbeats knowingly
- >bringing children into the world whom they cannot feed.
-
- In my opinion...
-
- The WORST "crime" is to let children starve.
-
- The second-worst "crime" is to interfere with a woman's decision to abort,
- either by mandating or forbidding abortion.
-
- The third-worst "crime" is for government to start interfering in sexual
- relations between consenting adults by telling them to "control their
- hormones" or whatever.
-
- Fourth on my list of "crimes" is for taxpayers to end up supporting children
- of poor people who are otherwise unable to support them adequately themselves.
- Look at our GNP sometime -- we can easily provide this support.
-
- >>>This is not meant to imply that certain situations don't exist where some
- >>>assistance is warranted, but rather that many more exist that would be
- >>>better solved by encouraging self-dependence rather than state-dependence.
- >
- >>But when it comes to abortion, you would rather have the state take charge
- >>than let the pregnant woman make her own decision about her life and her body?
- >
- >Abortion is murder. It's not a question of just the mother's life, but also
- >the baby's. The laws of this country already state that murder is wrong so
- >in fact the state already has control over this issue.
-
- Has any state ever successfully prosecuted any woman for "murder", because
- she aborted, even BEFORE _Roe v. Wade_? If not, what's your basis for citing
- "the laws of this country" in support of your contention that "abortion is
- murder"?
-
- - Kevin
-