From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:54:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.211540.23545@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.165702.18719@nwnexus.WA.COM>
>jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>
>> Like I said before, apparently not clear enough for some people to get...
>> Give me an alternative to abortion that stops a pregnancy and we'll
>> discuss it.
>> 
>> Jennifer
>
>Jennifer, I have a simple question for you.
>
>Suppose your mother, when she was pregnant with you, decided that
>pregnancy and childraising was too much of a burden and decided to,
>instead, terminate her pregnancy. You wouldn't be here! If my mother
>did so, neither would I!
>

Billy, I see you've brought up and old, but still unimportant point.
Which reminds me, what IS your point?  My mother stopped at two children.
So, we should cry for all the unborn that she never had?  Should we ask
_them_ what they think about her stopping at two?  Don't you see how _silly_
you're being?

I am perfectly willing to endorse alternatives to abortion.  I don't like
the idea that perfectly healthy unborn are being destroyed each day.  
Unfortunately, there IS NO alternative to abortion--yet.  All the "alternatives"
that I read about pitch another tune.  I know of no other way, save
abortion, that a woman can stop being pregnant so she doesn't have to
endure the hardships, pain, whatever, of pregnancy and childbirth.

Abstinence isn't an alternative--abstinence does NOTHING to stop a pregnancy.
It can stop a pregnancy from STARTING, but it does absolutely nothing to
stop it once it's begun.  I know...my last pregnancy involved abstinence
for the last two months..I remained pregnant.

Adoption isn't an alternative--adoption is a choice for AFTER childbirth
has occured.  It doesn't help the woman who doesn't want to be pregnant;
she still has to endure those 9 months anyway.  And then, once she gives
the child up to another couple, she has to endure the lifelong questions
about the child's welfare, whereabouts, etc.  Not much of an alternative
for anything, if you ask me.

Childbirth certainly isn't an alternative.

So, until an alternative to abortion is available, I will protect a woman's
right to reproductive freedom by supporting her right to choose--be it
termination or continuation.

No one should be forced to give birth; conversely, no one should be forced
to terminate a pregnancy, either.


>That's the biggest reason why abortion should be banned. People are
>*resources*, not "parasites" or "endless stomachs," as some of you on
>the net have claimed. If you don't agree with that statement, throw
>yourself off a roof right now -- human life is, in your opinion,
>worthless.

People are _resources_?  LIke timber, oil, communication skills?  I
always thought people were people.  Live and learn, I guess.

I don't agree that fetusus are "people".  Fetuses are fetuses.

What some of you folks don't get (among other things) is the unique 
situation of a pregnant woman and a fetus.  It would be *Impossible*,
given our system of government, to grant fetuses the same status as
born persons.  Why?  Because you would *always* have to have exceptions,
and exceptions imply a hierarchy of the right-to-life.  If a right-to-life
is absolute, then how can there be an exception to save the woman's life?
The fetus has certainly done nothing of its own volition to cause sucjh
danger,and given our system of justice, the only way killing a person is
allowed is if that person is doing something, or has done something, to
cause severe bodily harm to another person.  Simply existing is not a
reason, given our current system, to execute someone.  Executing a fetus,
simply because its mere existence could cause a woman's death would never
fly in our current system.

And, if you don't allow that exception, then you are saying that the woman's
right-to-life isn't absolute.  She has done nothing wrong to cause harm.
(Unless we make sex a crime.)  So, executing her just because the fetus
could die otherwise isn't going to fly either. 

So, if you ask me, we can't possibly make a right-to-life absolute.  WE
have to draw the line at something.  The reason I say birth is a good
demarcation is that it preserves the woman's right to reproductive freedom.
She still has a say, she is not controlled by anyone's political agenda.


Jennifer
By the way, Billy, my mother is PRO_ABORTION.  She thinks that single women
should not have babies--they should have abortions instead.  She also
thinks that if you don't have the resources (financial, emotional, and other)
to raise a child, you should have an abortion, too.  I don't presume to
say what others _should_ do, except follow their own consciouses.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh