From: serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:12:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.151934.6784@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
>In <1992Aug19.205546.26173@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>
>>What is wrong with abstinence if the woman (and man) cannot afford the 
>>consequences of a pregnancy? I really think you missed the boat entirely.  
>>People must begin to take responsibility for their actions.  If you choose 
>>to have sex, you must be aware that birth control does not offer a 100% 
>>guarantee that pregnancy will not occur.  You MUST be willing to accept the 
>>consequences of your actions.  If you cannot afford the costs of pregnancy 
>>then abstinence is the only way you will be sure that pregnancy will not 
>>occur. Let's face it folks, we have sex organs in order to reproduce.  They
>>are not there as a toy. 
>
>Hmmmph. You're not even trying to address my arguments. You're simply
>restating your religious beliefs. Look:
>
>Your religion teaches you that the sex organs exist for the following 
>purposes:
>    * Reproduction
>
>My philosophy (Secular Humanism) teaches me that the sex organs exist 
>for the following purposes:
>    * Reproduction
>    * Demonstration of Love/Affection
>    * Release of Nervous Tension
>    * Entertainment
>    * Probably some others that I can't think of right now.
>
>We have different religious beliefs. There is nothing wrong with that.
>
>You might want to try to convert me to your religion. There is 
>nothing wrong with that, either. If you want to try, please post 
>some arguments showing why your religion's views on sex are superior
>to mine. 
>
>You also want to pass laws which force me to live according to
>the tenets of your religion. There IS something wrong with 
>that. For one thing, it's un-American. If you want to live in
>a theocracy, move to Iran.
>
>>If we already took responsibilty for that which we
>>do voluntarily, abortion would be a non-issue because the few abortions being 
>>performed would be in cases of rape, incest, and those cases where a woman's
>>life is in danger. Yes, prohibiting what I call birth control abortions,
>
>I asked this is my last post, and I'll ask it again in this one: What,
>exactly, is wrong with abortion?
>
>You don't believe that the fetus has a right-to-life. If you did, you
>wouldn't allow exceptions in cases of rape and incest.
>
>As far as I can tell, your only objection to abortion is that you
>don't like it. That's a good reason for YOU not to have an abortion.
>Can you think of a good reason for OTHER PEOPLE not to have abortions?
>-- 
>
>===========================================================
>Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
>===========================================================

 You seem intent to make this a religious argument.  Whether or not 
 you believe in a higher intelligience, reproductive organs are exactly
 that REPRODUCTIVE organs.  Any other justification for their existence 
 is based solely on emotional responses of humans.  

 Yes, I believe abortion is wrong.  I do not think it is right to take 
 a potential life because you were not prepared to deal with that life. 
 Just because I would allow abortions in cases of incest and rape does 
 not mean that I do not believe a fetus has a right-to-life.  I do believe
 that a woman should not be forced go through a pregnancy caused my unwanted,
 illegal or immoral actions from a man.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity