From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 13:15:57 GMT

>>> D Bromley deleted the attribution
>> Larry Margolis
> D Bromley

>>>  This is classic liberal intellectual dishonesty. What fraction of
>>>  women who get abortions are married?  Maybe 1%??

>>This is classic ignorant stupidity.  More like 20 - 30%, depending on
>>what year you look at.  And of what relevance is that, anyway?  Saying
>>that people who don't want to have [any more] children should refrain from
>>sex *is* including *all* the married couples who don't want [more] kids.

>  Oh REALLY?  I notice you didn't cite any sources.  And even if 20%
>  were the actual figure, it is certainly the minority of cases, and
>  should be referred to as the exception, not the rule.

The fact that married women are in the minority of those who have abortions
is beside the point.  You still mandate that EVERY woman who voluntarily
has sex MUST carry any resulting fetus to term.  

And I will quote you a source:

"Marital Staus: Most women who have abortions (81%) are not married at the
time of the abortion; 96% of teenagers who have abortions are unmarried.

"Percentage of all abortions by marital status (1983): 81% unmarried,
19% married."

Source: Fact Sheet, produced by the National Abortion Federation, copyright
February 1988.

>  Did I say
>  that people who don't want kids shouldn't have sex?  

You have mandated that anyone who doesn't want to undergo PREGNANCY AND BIRTH
should nnot have sex.  This includes all married people who fall into that
category.

>There IS a 
>  thing called birth control, 

Which often fails, due to the limitations of the device and/or lack of
education of the user.  Do you advocate development of better birth control
methods?  More comprehensive sex ed in earlier grades?  Government
subsidizing of all forms of birth control for those who can't afford it?

>and an unexpected pregnancy doesn't
>  necessitate abortion.  

That depends on who you ask.  It sure as hell did for me.

>Certainly if a woman is older and can't
>  physically cope with a pregnancy, then an abortion would be 
>  performed to save the life of the mother, 

Is that the only case you recognize where the pregnancy threatens the mother
significantly enough that you would agree with an abortion decision?  Or
were the other reasons too insignificant to mention?  After all, it's only
a woman's life.

>but MANY people who
>  you see every day ARE the result of unexpected pregnancies. 

So?  

>I
>  would say that people who CAN'T have pregnancies for one reason
>  or another shouldn't have sex, yes...

Oh, nnow THIS makes sense: If you CAN get pregnant, it's OK to have sex,
but you'll be punished by being forced to carry the fetus to term whether
you like it or not.  But if you are serile, and there is no risk of
pregnancy, it's NOT Ok to have sex.

>  Please do tell me where you got that 20-30% figure, because that
>  figure seems ridiculous.

I told you, and why do you think 20% is ridiculous?  Just can't conceive
of the nnotion that a woman might not consider herself a baby factory
just because she is married?

-- 
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh