Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site shark.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!shark!brianp From: brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: A Time for Anger Message-ID: <978@shark.UUCP> Date: Sat, 11-Aug-84 23:33:10 EDT Article-I.D.: shark.978 Posted: Sat Aug 11 23:33:10 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 13-Aug-84 00:45:39 EDT References: <122@bsdgvax.UUCP> Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 71 Gr > From: Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp Gr > Allowing abortion implies freedom, choice to go EITHER way. It Gr > is better to let individuals decide their own life when there is Gr > no better way of deciding their own life for them. Gr Gr The fact is you only want freedom for the woman. What about the unborn Gr child? Someone must protect the rights of the unborn. Self-serving Gr feminists want us to believe that a woman has a right to an abortion. Gr BUNK! The abortionist wants to make the decision for the unborn. You assume that the unborn have rights. This is ok only if there is room for all of them. Passing out more right to life (if you say the right to life comes from anywhere other than mankind, justify your position) to more people than you can feed is like printing more money than you can back. YOU seem to want to make decisions for women! The situation is a woman's rights versus an embryo's "rights". To >guarantee< that one gets her (or your) way, one must go against the other. How do you decide which way to go? What assumptions are you making? Why do you make those assumptions? What are you going to do about the ~70% of fertilized ova that die naturally? Gr I say it's time to stop all the talk and do something. That only works if we agree (when there is a brush fire, for example). Talking is a way of finding what we >really< want, or at least a way that upsets each side only half as much. Gr "Oh," they say "life begins at birth." or "It's the quality of life that Gr is important, not just life itself." Suppose this country decided that Gr all liberals didn't have a life worth living, and they should be put to Gr death by dismemberment. I wonder how they would like that. That's right, quality counts! How would you like it if you could have nothing but what is necessary to keep you alive? What if someone dumped a baby on you and you HAD to care for it? Did you know that it is a full time job to raise a small child? (and it is not all compressed into 8 hours in the waking hours) It looks like just about everyone agrees that already born people should be allowed to live. NOT everyone agrees that all embryos should be allowed to live. Obviously there is some sort of difference. All of us would like to make sure that the difference persists, if abortion is allowed. That is why we must discuss the issue and find out what people want, and what we must be wary of. You seem to have closed your mind. If some people have different opinions, don't you think that there are >reasons<, or do you just think that anyone who disagrees with you is Evil, sent by Satan, and must be fought with the full strength of God? (Maybe through calm, reasonable discussions, you can find a flaw in their assumptions or reasoning, instead of spreading hatred.) Gr I think that pro-abortion types should be really concerned about the future Gr of legalized abortion in this country. So do I. It is controversial enough to warrant care, no matter which way we decide to go. It would be >nice< if nobody even wanted an abortion. Gr I agree with Franky Schaeffer, this is a time for anger. Gr Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. Gr SDG/Devon Anger is only good for fighting. If fighting goes too far, there will be abortions of full grown adults. (..owl?) Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp