From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:46:58 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <C030s1.652@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>[Deletions]

>>>Sounds like you're suggesting that if the couple wanted a child, but their
>>>financial situation changed after conception so that they could no longer
>>>afford to have a child, the responsible action would be to get an abortion.
>>
>>This is a stupid comment on your part.  First of all, you and I both know
>>the truth is that this is not how these situations arise.  Generally,
>>poor families have more babies for one of two reasons.. 1. Stubborn insistance
>>on exercising some authority over their lives by having children (ignoring
>>the needs of the children in doing so)  or 2. Seeking to increase welfare
>>payments from the TAX supported state by adding another starving kid to
>>the litter.
>>
>>They should put it up for adoption and then be reimbursed the expenses
>>of pregnancy and childbirth if the situation you proposed actually occurred.  
>>
>You're a truely cold hearted bastard aren't you?

By your definition, perhaps.  I'm sure you consider it cold-hearted to
be more concerned with the needs of helpless, desperate children than the
irresponsible, uncaring desires of their parents.

>You're publically stating that you would not only force women to give
>birth to children they don't want, but you would also force peopel to
>give up children that they *do* want, simply because of their
>financial status?

I am NOT FORCING A WOMAN TO DO ANYTHING.  I did not force her (or the man)
to have sex.  I did not send the sperm up the Fallopian tube.  I am simply
preventing her from murdering a helpless baby which was created as a RESULT
of HER actions.  

I am not advocating taking children from parents because of their financial
status.  I am advocating taking some actions, possibly taking children
from their parents, if those parents do not demonstrate a desire and 
willingness to improve the situation those children are in.  Raising
a child on welfare is tantamount to murder.  If that child never gets
proper food, he/she will never live up to his/her potential in school.
The issue here is teaching adults to be responsible for their children.
This problem wouldn't even exist if people FIRST worked to become financially
stable and THEN had children.  This is the approach taken by
most college-educated people.

>Here's a clue, you twit.

Oooh.. name-calling... very mature.

>Adoption is ared herring. Uless the infant is Healthy, White, and Less
>then one year old when placed at the adoption agency, the odds of its
>ever leaving are vanishingly small.

So what?  Are you God? Can you see the future? Can you tell me that in 20
years that child will ABSOLUTELY NOT be a happy, productive citizen--
thankful that his mother didn't have him butchered in the womb?
All I want is to ensure that child gets fed properly.

Read my post above to Heather.

>[More deletions]

>--
>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
>These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
>your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
>Ghost of Elvis. So there.


Edward Simmonds- Standard disclaimers