From: tommyk@castle.ed.ac.uk (T Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Back from Texas - 2 of 2
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:09:17 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Apr10.060835.9435@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><31068@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) said:

>Our conclusions are correct for us, if you don't like them, you don't have
>to have an abortion.  Pretty simple huh?

I wish it was that simple.

But if I apply that argument then I should simply refrain from raping,
but leave rapists alone.
I should refrain from stealing but leave robbers alone.
I should refrain from murdering but leave murderers alone.

Something wrong somewhere...

>>In Adrienne etc., we have a group of people who would allow women to kill
>>the entity within them in order to be freed from it.
>>
>>...

>So far so good.

>>Adrienne etc, would have no problems with 1.5 million babies being killed
>>every year - AND GET THIS - they warn me not to legislate against it because
>>I might get legislated against next!

>Not exactly, you are expected to stay out of it because it isn't your body
>that's being used against your will.  It isn't your health and life being
>threatened against your will.  It isn't your career and education at risk
>against your will.

I know its not my body.
I know its not my health and life.
I know its not my career.
I know its not my education.

So what?

Its not my body, health, life, career, and education at risk when a mad
killer murders someone in Manchester - but I still condone locking him up.

Of course, if the only "victim" in abortion was the woman then I would
have no case.

>>1.5 million babies - and their argument wouldn't change.
>>...

>Not to mention:
>1.5 million Jesus's - and our argument wouldn't change.
>...

>>I must sit back and watch them do it - 1.5 million every year - just
>>because I might be next!
>
>No, because it's not your body being put at risk.

So what?  The foetus is being put at risk.


>>What they fail to see is that I am already in danger - because I support
>>laws against rapists.
>A crime perpetrated against the body of another person.

But you just said that you would still argue for abortion if it killed 1.5
million babies, adults, Ghandis etc.

Those would be crimes against the body of other persons.

Something wrong somewhere...

>>I support laws against reckless drivers.
>A danger to every person.

*DRIVING* is a danger (although a lesser one) to others.  But we allow that.
And besides - suppose I don't care.
And suppose a majority of you USA folks don't care?

>>What they fail to see is that THEY THEMSELVES in supporting similar laws
>>(you *do* support laws against rape don't you?) inflict their views on others.
>
>These laws protect the rights of people.

But those rights are imventions - man-made.

And worse they often conflict.

I say I have a right to kill red-heads.  The red-heads (and most other folk)
say I don't.

Who wins - the mostest.

I say foetuses have a right to live - in their mother - till birth.
You say they don't, unless the mother agrees.

Who wins - the mostest.

Apart from the "mostest", what's the real fundamntel difference?

>>And finally - what of that final issue - the fact that all of those laws
>>force non-action - whereas anti-abortion laws force action (support of the
>>foetus).
>
>Some pro-lifers were just arguing how abortion is an action and that not
>aborting is a non-action.  You should probably rehearse your lines
>together to keep it straight.

No, I meant what I said.  No mistake.

>>NOTE WELL:  Remember your "irrelevance stance" Adrienne.  The last sort of
>>response I should expect from you is that the 1.5 million are NOT babies.
>>We all *know* that.  And of course, you don't care what they are ... do you?
>
>Not as long as they are inside of people who do not want them there.

Why should I consider their wishes Gordon?

tk