home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!vengeanc
- From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
- Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
- References: <30DEC92.15253702@vax.clarku.edu>
- Message-ID: <C031zB.6nE@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Sender: usenet@news.cso.uiuc.edu (Net Noise owner)
- Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
- Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:30:46 GMT
- Lines: 147
-
- hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
-
-
- >In a previous article, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu wrote:
- >>hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
- >>>In a previous article, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu wrote:
- >>>>jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
-
- >>>>An unborn baby has undertaken no conscious action of any kind, nor with
- >>>>any malice, to threaten any member of society. Thus, without due process,
- >>>>it is your contention that this baby be found guilty of nothing and
- >>>>sentenced to death for it.
-
- >>>Fetuses do pose a threat to members of society - the women that they are
- >>>living inside of. Every pregnant woman faces a risk of death that is greater
- >>>than 0.00.
-
- >>So do people driving cars. The issue is whether someone has demonstrated
- >>through an ACTION they have willingly undertaken that they are a LARGE
- >>threat. This is a very weak argument you present here.
-
- >If you feel that the risk involved with driving is too great, you have a right
- >to stop driving. If a woman feels that her pregnancy is posing to great a
- >risk to her life, she has a right to have an abortion and stop being pregnant.
-
- Do you think any of this stuff through before you post it? I do NOT have
- the right to FORCE YOU to stop driving. YOU might run me over when I'm walking
- down the street. YOU might slam your care into my kitchen when I'm eating
- dinner. YOU might kill my mother. Hacking a baby into pieces amounts to the
- same thing. The baby has not chosen A. to be conceived .. or B. to be
- murdered. Your forcing that baby to DIE means you have enforced your will
- upon it (much the same as my forcing you not to drive).
-
- Why do you insist on punishing the innocent for the crimes of the uncaring
- or irresponsible? Wouldn't this be the same if I suddenly decided that
- you are an undue burden to your mother, or to society, and brutally cut
- you apart? I'll answer my own question.. yes.
-
-
- >>>>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 sounds like you are blaming poor, homeless and hungry children for being
- >born to parents who's sex lives you don't approve of. They should have had
- >responsible parents? I don't think they had much say in the matter. This
- >is really bizzare.
-
- >>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. Would any decent
- >>person bring children into this world to watch them starve? I think not.
-
- >Whether or not these people are "decent", the fact remains that there are
- >millions of poor, homeless, and hungry children in the world. They exist.
- >What do you suggest we do about them?
-
- >>And yes, wasteful social programs WILL encourage children to be bums because
- >>they learn by the example of their parents.
-
- >>Only an idiot would hold children responsible for the stupidity and
- >>cruelty of their parents. If programs that help these children could be
- >>enacted that would truly be uncorruptable and beneficial to them, they would
- >>be warranted.
-
- >Such as?
-
- Limited term welfare in which the participants must demonstrate a willingness
- while they are sitting on their butts at home to get an education. Full
- scholarships based on need are a dime a dozen. If you are sitting at home,
- watching your color TV and collecting my tax money, I have a right to expect
- you to take all your free time and make something of yourself. If you
- refuse and instead insist on being a parasite, we cut off your money, take
- your children from you, and let you fend for yourself.
-
- >>>>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. The only problem is
- >>in making people aware of what abortion really is... cold blooded, vicious,
- >>violent, painful MURDER.
-
- >You may think abortion is murder, but the laws of the U.S. do not. Abortion
- >happens to be perfectly legal. But just out of curiousity, what kind of
- >punishment do you think women who have abortions should recieve?
-
- Abortion is murder. The AMA believed this for over a hundred years before
- they were taken over by you liberals. I suppose this isn't that hard to
- understand because charging a woman for pregnancy used to be more profitiable,
- but now murdering those babies pays alot more. Don't ever kid yourself,
- we live in a capitalist society, and money creates morality. How do the
- liberals try and get special rights for gays in Colorado? They boycott
- the whole state (even those who voted for the legislation) to hurt them
- FINANCIALLY. Money rules most professions. You women who are supporting
- your right to kill babies (your right to CHOOSE), are in fact supporting
- a profession whose only goal is to get rich by exploiting you.
-
- Sodomy is illegal in many states, whats your point? Not every law that
- exists is based on decent moral standards. As far as I'm concerned what
- people do in their bedroom is their business, but your contention is that
- I am wrong because the law proscribes such activities. If your dog wanders
- onto my property, it's perfectly legal for me to kill it and eat it. Is
- this morally right? You tell me.
-
- I don't think women who have abortions should receive any punishment at all
- other than counseling. Women who have abortions are not malicious killers,
- they are simply women in a difficult situation seeking the easy way out.
- They need to be convinced that what they have done, or are trying to do, is
- in fact the murder of an innocent life. Only a callous jerk would propose
- we imprison them for being scared and frightened.
-
- The doctors who perform abortions are murderers. Abortionists should be hung.
- Talk about being a mass murderer, John Wayne Gacy can't even come close to
- these sick bastards.
-
- >>This isn't the forum to discuss abortion. If you would like to argue it go
- >>to talk.abortion.
-
- >I'm reading it on talk.abortion. Where are you?
-
- Actually, I was on another one... don't know how it got mixed up. Sorry
- for the confusion.
-
- >>Edward Simmonds
-
- > .... Heather.
-
- Edward Simmonds- opinions are my own and are perfectly correct
-
-