home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!kel111
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:30:38 EST
- From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
- Message-ID: <93026.113038KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
- Distribution: becka@leland.stanford.edu
- References: <1993Jan25.115252.2129@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>
- <1993Jan25.195007.11399@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
- <93025.203043KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> <1993Jan26.105628.5863@leland.Stanford.EDU>
- Lines: 26
-
- In article <1993Jan26.105628.5863@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
- becka@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rebecca Lynn Sparling) says:
-
- >Is war wrong? Not according to most (in certain situations, of
- >course). Is it necessary in certain situations? It can be argued
- >that it is. Does that make it good? Not that I've ever heard. Does
- >war reduce population? Hell yes.
-
- OK, but the difference (as most pro-choicers see it) is that war
- kills people, where abortion does not. Abortion reduces population of
- "potential people," theoretically killing nobody. I think everyone here
- agrees that killing people is something to avoid, and that killing innocent
- people is wrong.
-
- >See how inane this sounds? Just checking.
-
- Why yes, it does. But your analogy is flawed. I'm asking about the pro-choice
- perspective, in which abortion doesn't kill innocent people. This being the
- case, there should be nothing wrong with abortion, and thus no urgent need
- to have fewer of them.
-
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Kurt E. Ludwick | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
- - - - - - - - -|
- kel111@psuvm.psu.edu | what's the opposite of Progress...?
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
-