NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/57484

Text File | 1993-01-23 | 5.7 KB | 158 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.columbia.edu!cunixb.cc.columbia.edu!rj24
From: [e-mail] (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: COMPROMISE AND THE ABORTION TOPIC
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The Network News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
References: <1993Jan19.012725.13783@bsu-ucs> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 05:54:39 GMT
Lines: 143

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.012725.13783@bsu-ucs>
>[e-mail] writes:
>
>> All i've seen thus far in this newsnet (and i'm new to it) is a bunch of guys
>> debating what is essentially a woman's decision.  But, being a man myself
>> i find myself needing to post.  (I am after all, gay... as if)
>
>I think you'll find that the vast majority of women do not
>support unrestricted abortion-on-demand.  Polls tend to show
>that women want to give the child some legal protection.
>Simple restrictions like waiting periods and informed
>consent provisions have especially widespread support.
>

Waiting periods are especially unfair to woman in rural areas who may
have to make an overnight trip just to see a doctor who will perform an
abortion. A waiting period can cost her several days productivity, perhaps
even her job. Is this what you support?

>> The biggest compromise is to leave abortin safe and legal, and then let
>> the individual decide based on morals and self-identity and religion (if
>> need be).
>
>This is not really a compromise, it is the pro-choice position.
>A real compromise would be to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the
>issue to the states where it rightfully belongs.  Let the people
>vote on the issue.  Judicial fiat is no way to decide such a
>controversial issue.
>

The pro-choice position IS a compromise. No matter how inept a
parent you might be, you can still chose not to have an abortion,
and raise your child. No compromise would be to legislate mandatory
abortion for people judged to be inept parents.

>> Most pro-lifers don't know that the vast majority of pro-choicers are
>> personally against it (like myself) but politically support abortion.
>
>If you feel that abortion is wrong, then why support its legality?
>Why is your answer different when you consider the killing of a
>born person?
>

Doug, I find theism to be an ignorant, stupid philosophy. Are you saying
that I should be trying to make it illegal to believe in god?

Your logic here is truly scary.

>> Legalization will not see a great increase of abortion as many pro-lifers
>> feel.
>
>It already has.  After Roe v. Wade was decided, the number of abortions
>increased steadily for several years.  And I've posted articles showing
>that permissive abortion laws often have the effect of reducing the
>practice of contraception.
>

Yoou have posted several articles which show nothing more than what a
fool you are.

>> Secondly, pro-lifers usually talk of adoption.  Under normal circumstances,
>> i would agree, but in America (where adoption homes and foster homes and
>> orphanages are poorly run and funded) i am highly against it.
>
>If you're against children suffering in foster homes and orphanages,
>then why don't you kill them too?  After all, you'd be doing them a
>favor, right?   How can YOU tell a child that they have no right to
>live because their life doesn't meet YOUR expectations?
>

Why can't you understand the difference between a fetus and a child?
Why can't you understand that abortion is COMPLETELY different from
child killing? It is not a difficult concept.

>> Last time i
>> checked, which was two years ago, roughly 65% of those who are put up for
>> adoption are left there until 18.
>
>Documentation, please.
>

You, of all people, have no right ot ask for docuentation. You are
the master of making absurd claims with no evidence.

>> Then, what we have are a group of uneducated
>> individuals, if they even survive entact.
>
>That's right, uneducated individuals should not be allowed to live.
>How kind of you, "Brandon".
>

You are fantasizing again doug. Take your medicine.

>> Are all those pro-adoption-lifers
>> going to adopt a child they save,
>
>Sure.  You stop killing children, and people will adopt them.
>

They don't even adopt the ones out there already.

Secondly, unless you are going to legislate that a woman must get
pre-natal care, and must refrain from smoking, drinking, etc. for the
duration of her pregnancy, you are only going to bring more sick,
brain damaged children who will never be adopted into the world. Is
part of your theoretical legislation going to be controling the
behavior of pregnant women?

>> Thirdly, i'd rather see the potential for life die than watch two lives go
>> (the mother and the child) in an unsafe abortion.
>
>False dichotomy.  Nobody has to die.
>

If you think that people don't die in illegal abortions, you are
ignorant or stupid. Which is it, doug?

>> Making abortion illegal WILL NOT make it go away, people.
>> Let's try and end this on a different level.
>
>Nobody ever said that abortion would "go away" completely.
>But that's not a justification for unrestricted abortion-
>on-demand.  Rape and homicide will never go away either...
>

Rape and homocide have demonstrable negative effects on society as a whole,
as well as on individual members of society. Abortion does not. This is
an invalid metaphor.

>
>>Brandon
>

>Doug Holtsinger

Robert Johnston

'finger [e-mail]' for documentation which shows that
Doug is quite enamored with his inability to prove anything.