NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53570

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 3.6 KB | 85 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!news
From: [e-mail] (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:52:28 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Lines: 69
            <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: margoli.watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] () writes:
>[e-mail] (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] () writes:
>>>
>>>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.  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.
>
>>Sounds like you're suggesting that if the couple wanted a child, but their
>>financial situation changed after conception so that they could no longer
>>afford to have a child, the responsible action would be to get an abortion.
>
>This is a stupid comment on your part.  First of all, you and I both know
>the truth is that this is not how these situations arise.

Not always.  But it does happen sometimes.

>They should put it up for adoption and then be reimbursed the expenses
>of pregnancy and childbirth if the situation you proposed actually occurred.

And in the case of a single mother who'd lose her job if she carried to term?
She and her existing children should just starve?

>>>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.
>
>>But murder is illegal, and abortion is legal.  I guess abortion is *not*
>>murder after all.
>
>Another brainless one-liner comment with no forethought behind it.

Glad you recognise your comment for what it was.

>Did you think I was not aware that unborn baby killing is legal?

Since murder refers to unlawful killing, it's obvious that you're confused
somewhere.

>Just because the LEGAL definition of murder

Abortion was *never* considered to be murder, even when abortion was illegal.

>has surrendered to the liberal, self-serving,
>do-anything-I-want-with-no-personal-responsibility-or-repercussions wing
>of society doesn't mean abortion isn't murder.

Sure it does.

>My point was that society has always considered murder wrong,

And has generally considered abortion to be allowable.

>The primary job of
>government IS to RESTRICT actions which violate the basic rights of its
>citizens, primarily the right to LIFE.

Since fetuses are not citizens, this would appear to be a non sequitor.

>- I am right, you are wrong, coo coo cah choo cah coo coo cah choo -

And neither logic nor facts will sway you...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), [e-mail] (Internet)