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.