Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gymble.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!davew From: davew@gymble.UUCP (David Weber) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Inconsistency in Right-to-life position? Message-ID: <25@gymble.UUCP> Date: Fri, 17-Aug-84 10:11:07 EDT Article-I.D.: gymble.25 Posted: Fri Aug 17 10:11:07 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 19-Aug-84 13:15:25 EDT References: <476@ames.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Laboratory for Parallel Computation, C.P., MD Lines: 17 You have made a very good point about a common inconsistency in some people's right-to-life position. One thing that pro-lifers are against is the killing of fetus's as a matter of convenience for the mother. Yet many say that abortion is O.K. in the case of rape. Wouldn't a woman who had an abortion because she was raped be just as guilty as a woman who wasn't raped; she again would be thinking of her own convenience. I happen to be against abortion in all cases for the simple fact that I believe it is the murder of an innocent life. If you lower your standard just a little once, you'll probably lower it more later. If abortion is O.K. in the case of rape today, someday it will be O.K. in other cases as well. The bottom line in the abortion issue is "Are you sure that abortion is not murder of an innocent life?" Unless you are sure, why take the risk? Remember, the burden of proof is on the pro-choice, not the the pro-life. Innocent until proven guilty.