Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:41:28 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:

>In article <adams.717438740@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>>>In article <syl.717230669@bcserv> syl@bcserv.wustl.edu (Syl the Wallydraigle) writes:
>>>>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Official Astro Boy Virus expert)  writes:
>
>
>>You get to chose.  But so do I.  And I want to keep it that way.  You can
>>do darn well anything you want, so long as it doesn't injure another
>>person...try being a libertarian!
>
>
>Yep, gotta agree here, especially the part about not hurting anyone else!
Good.

>However, you must realize that one out of every two people entering an 
>abortion clinic doesn't make it out alive.
Nope.  The mortality rate for abortion is nowhere near 50%.  When a
pregnant woman enters the clinic, only one person enters...there is no case
that can be made for holding that the fetus is a person in a legal sense.

>I'd call that injuring another person. 
Not by any legal definition that I am aware of.

>Abortion is legal (in NY state) throughout an entire pregnancy!  
And?

>That means the day before birth, a baby can be legally killed.  
No, the fetus can be legally aborted.

>The day after birth, someone would be jailed for the same offense!  
Right.  Because now we have a legal person upon whom the crime of murder
can be committed....

>One might argue that because the baby can't live on it's own, that it is not a 
>yet.  BULL!  A one year old baby can't live on it's own!  
No, it can't.  But a one-year old baby is NOT dependent on specific person
to continue to live, nor does it reside in another persons' body.

That's the difference.  I can care for a one-day old with little trouble
(ok, perhaps lots of trouble, but I can do it...after all, I've had
practice with 3 kids).

>Where do we draw the line?     
At birth, at least legally.

>>And yes, I can hold my own set of morals and live just fine without forcing
>>them on anyone else.
>>
>>Lumping all 'pro-choice' people together is a stupid generalization.
>
>True! I'm pro-choice. Yes, I agree that a woman should have a choice, and she 
>DOES!  She can choose to get pregnant, or not to.  Her so-called right to 
>choice, should however, disappear as soon as it involves another human being.
"Sex" == "consent to prgnancy" eh?  Sorry, but that doesn't work.  What
about cases of rape and/or incest?  That woman has NO choice as to whether
or not she becomes preganant.

And for that matter, assume for a moment that a woman is on the pill, uses
a diaphragm, spermicide and the man uses a condom with nonoxyl-9.  She
gets pregant.  I hardly think she CONSENTED to pregancy...(Granted this is
perhaps a stretch, but I wanted to make the point).

Birth control fails.  Sex IS NOT consent to be impregnanted.

>Ron Goers @ Xerox Corporation           Email: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com
Another person who confuses sex with intent to reproduce.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558