From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:51:05 GMT

In article <7ybncfp.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes ...
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes ...
>>>>So this means that if you have sex and use contraceptives trying not to have
>>>>a baby, then the contraceptives fail, then that means that you should still
>>>>be held accountable for your actions. 
>>>
>>>Using this same reasoning, I could just as easily argue that people who get
>>>in car accidents should be allowed to die(an expected consequence of driving),
>>>and people who have heart attacks, or catch a communicable disease, or get
>>>lung cancer, should be allowed to die, as each is an expected consequence
>>>of poor diet, socialize with people, or smoking (or socializing with smokers).
>>
>>If you are suggesting AIDS, then I say:
>>  Once someone gets AIDS, we must try to treat them non-judgementally and
>>try to give them some care and compassion.
>
>No, as a matter of fact, AIDS hadn't even occurred to me.  I was thinking
>of things like smallpox, measles, and the like.
>
>>   When talking about abortions, however, the issue isn't that the woman
>>would die.  The issue is that the unborn son or daughter is caught in the
>>crossfire because of the actions of the father and mother.
>>
>>   No, I do not wish to get into another abortion debate.
>
>I really hate cowards who want to try to get in the last word by debating
>then saying they don't want to debate.  If you don't want to debate, don't
>post.
>

I've already posted lots and made my stand.  I want to keep certain debates
to certain threads.  Abortion is a multifaceted issue you can approach
from many different angles.  What I am saying is that I do not wish to enter
a new angle to the debate.  

>As for unborn son/daughter, I might point out that it isn't necessarily
>either.  "It" would be more appropriate for the early stages, as no sex
>organs have developed.  (and for the pedants out there, sexuality and 
>gender are not determined solely by genes)

Please explain yourself.  The ENTIRE individual is defined at birth.  



>
>>>In fact, however, any activity has some associated risk.  The fact that we
>>>use seatbelts when driving, and have hospitals and medicines and insurance
>>>indicates that after-the-fact corrections are widely accepted and even
>>>expected.
>>>
>>>So why should abortion be any different?
>
>>Killing the elderly because they burden us and our systems is also an
>>after-the-fact correction.  Getting rid of immigrants after flooding
>>our shores can also be construed to be an after-the-fact correction.
>>
>>I have nothing against 'correcting' someone with AIDS.
>>
>>I do have something against killing the child for the actions of the mother
>>and the father.  The 'correction' itself, is not sound, so therefore, 
>>the 'correction' in this case must not be used as it is very destructive.
>
>Do you have any notion as to the difference between a first-trimester 
>abortion and the murder of an immigrant or elderly person?  Yes, abortion
>is destructive.  But so is forced childbirth; and in my opinion more so.
>
>What is even more destructive are laws that attempt to take control of
>people's bodies by requiring childbirth.
>
>But that you apparently have no qualms about exterminating people with AIDS
>leads one to have serious doubts about the nobleness of your motives in
>wishing to protect "unborn children".

I did not say anything about exterminating people with AIDS.  Please, I ask
you, do not slander me.  Didn't I say that once a person has AIDS, I want
lots of care and compassion for them no matter how they got it?  

Again, I ask you personally, PLEASE DO NOT SLANDER ME.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc