From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Abortion in historical comparison
Keywords: abortion, slavery, history, atrocity
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:16:36 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<pizefb7@Unify.Com> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) said:
>The following is the basis for an article that I am considering publishing. 
>I would appreciate your opinions of it.  This is a _first draft_, so don't
>flame the English (I have already seen a couple sentences I want to
>change).
>
>It is deisnged to draw in the reader without mentioning abortion (since 
>pro-abortionists are often turned away by the mere mention of anything
>negative about abortion), and then to relate abortion to some atrocities
>of the past.

Yeah, right Sean.

...
>Take abortion, a major issue in our society today.  The assumption that allows
>us to eliminate millions of unborn fetuses is that they are not human (sound
>familiar).  

It's a familiar accusation of the pro-lifers.  I fail to see how anyone
can say that a human fetus is not a human being.  Now *personhood*, that's
different.

>            We even have a different name for them (fetuses as apposed to
>unborn babies).  

Yes, we do have correct terminology.

>                 There have been instances of babies being aborted and 
>surviving to become healthy productive adults.  I know of babies born during
>the fourth month of pregnancy that have survived with no side effects.

Care to cite some case studies?  I can't imagine a 16 week old fetus
surviving outside of the womb.

>                                                                        How
>can we not call these unborn babies human?  

I don't know.  How can you?

>                                            We can do it because it is too
>difficult to think of the alternative - that we are murdering unborn children
>(humans) for no other reason than "it is inconvenient".  

No one is murdering unborn children in this country.  That's probably why
most of us don't waste time worrying about it.  If you are going to use
hallucinogins you might at least make sure everyone can have some.

>                                                         There are a lot of
>people in this world that are inconvenient, but we are not murdering them.

How many of these people are living inside of someone elses body?

>In my mind this is as bad an assumption as saying "blacks are not human" or
>"Jews are an inferior race".  I fully expect that 50 to 100 years from now
>people will look at this period with as much disdain as we look at past times.

Yeah, I have no doubt they'll wonder about the "Cult of the Fetus".

>They will have a difficult time understanding how we could allow ourselves to
>kill such helpless human beings.   They will look at people that say "we have
>the right to decide" and ask "How can you have the right to decide to murder 
>someone?".

Probably because abortion isn't murder.

>We need to face up to this situation, recognize that we have been perpetrating
>an atrocious crime against humanity and solve the problem.  

You're right, we need to stop the atrocity of organized religion.

>                                                            Recognizing the
>problem is the first step in any solution.  We must stop hiding from the
>obvious, accept that we made a bad assumption. and stop killing the unborn
>children by the millions.

Since you can't kill an unborn children our "problem" is solved.

Thanks for playing Sean.  What radical pro-life rag were you thinking of
submitting this to?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.