From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 20:23:47 GMT

In <1992Oct5.075320.16290@s1.gov>, Loren I. Petrich writes:

>In article <1992Oct3.030602.952@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (S

>>Why is it that when someone says that they are pro-choice they staunchly
>>support abortion and refuse to discuss alternatives??

Only a handful of strident, militant pro-choicers are truly "pro-abortion."

>>I think life is a good choice.

I do too.  But my choice should not be law.  I should be free to choose it, but
I have no right to force others to live by my set of values.

>   So a z/e/f is _more_ alive than a grown person? Good grief.

That's a valid argument if inconvenience and killing were equivalent.  I'm not
the "abortion is murder, period" type, but your argument ignores the difference
in the actions being contrasted.  Killing is more severe than any inconvenience
that a mother would suffer.  So the "misery calculus" comes back into balance.

No doubt, a mother is at least as human, if not more so, than a fetus.  That
tips the scales in favor of the mother.  However, killing what is arguably a
human life is more grisly than causing an inconvenience which does *not* result
in the loss of a life.  In my mind, that negates the mother's "more human"
argument.

>>I have one solution, and I'll get nuclear flamed for it, but what is
>>wrong with abstinence as a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Nothing is wrong with that, as long as you're not suggesting that people must
ALWAYS say no when they both want to say yes.

>   So one must never have sex unless one wants to produce
>children?

He didn't say that.  He asked what is wrong with abstinence.  Clearly, there
is *nothing* wrong with abstinence as a form of avoiding STD.  If he had said
"what is wrong with FORCING monogamy and celibacy," then you'd have some valid
flame bait.  He did NOT.  Are you advocating promiscuity?  If you are, fine.
You can even say so.  Abstinence alone is not the answer, but there's nothing
wrong with it for the people who are inclined to practice it.  I didn't see the
above quote (which you flamed) say that abstinence is the only way--just an
effective defense against STDs.  Or am I missing something?

>   Baloney.

He never said that, and I'm tired of flames to this argument.  I *would* flame
someone who suggested that abstinence was the *only* way and tried to force
everyone outside of a monogamous relationship to remain celibate.  He mentioned
DISCUSSING ABSTINENCE AS AN ALTERNATIVE!  WHAT IS SO DARN WRONG WITH THAT?  He
HAS NOT condemned those who are NOT abstinent!  So the flames are totally
unjustified.  Are you against telling people that abstinence will prevent AIDS?
Do you have an aversion to the TRUTH?!?!

>   I think people are entitled to their fun. I wonder if those
>who advocate this "solution" only have sex when _they_ want to have
>children.

We all have a right to the "pursuit of happiness," I'll agree.

You know, as a libertarian, I don't want people forced by government/society to
act against their will and desires.  But still, abstinence IS a solution.  I
said *A* solution, not *THE* solution.  Is that too hard to take?  Is THAT too
Puritan?

>   And what about someone who was raped?

Or incest...or to save the mother's life...even most pro-lifers favor abortion
under those circumstances.

I'm tired of abortion being a black and white issue.  Most Americans see
various shades of gray.  Most Americans want abortion legal, but they don't
want abortion on demand funded with tax dollars.  Virtually all Americans favor
legal abortions for rape victims--including most pro-lifers.

I hate abortion, but I'm pro-choice.  I hope people choose life, but I can
accept that they sometimes won't.  I do want the government out of the abortion
funding business, though.  If the militant pro-choicers REALLY want "government
out of their wombs," then they would be advocating no more government
involvement in the abortion issue--including funding.  How many militant pro-
choicers feel that way?  I don't like it when my tax dollars are funded to
do what I consider immoral.  Note that I said what *I* feel immoral.  I have
*zero* desire to impose that morality on others, nor do I want to tell YOU
what to do with YOUR tax dollars.

>>BTW--anyone notice that I've kept my postings on the level, without the
>>sarcasm of the replies I get???

>   Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo. What a crybaby.

Well, I didn't think he needed to bring that up, but you just proved his point.


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
****************************************************************************
"We have been entreated to trade some of our freedom for security, and have
found that government has made us both less free and less secure."
                                          -- Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh