From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 30 Dec 92 15:25:37 GMT
Organization: Clark University


In a previous article, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu wrote:
>hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>In a previous article, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu wrote:
>>>jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:

>>>An unborn baby has undertaken no conscious action of any kind, nor with
>>>any malice, to threaten any member of society.  Thus, without due process,
>>>it is your contention that this baby be found guilty of nothing and 
>>>sentenced to death for it.

>>Fetuses do pose a threat to members of society - the women that they are 
>>living inside of.  Every pregnant woman faces a risk of death that is greater 
>>than 0.00.

>So do people driving cars.  The issue is whether someone has demonstrated
>through an ACTION they have willingly undertaken that they are a LARGE
>threat.  This is a very weak argument you present here.

If you feel that the risk involved with driving is too great, you have a right 
to stop driving.  If a woman feels that her pregnancy is posing to great a 
risk to her life, she has a right to have an abortion and stop being pregnant.

>>>The resistance you hear from "us" concerning social programs is not
>>>a result of our lack of respect or concern for human life, rather it is
>>>from the opposite, our concern for human life.  Creating a welfare state
>>>inhibits people's belief in themselves, promotes and reinforces their
>>>feelings of helplessness rather than encouraging the desire to change their
>>>situation by themselves, and punishes those who have accepted the 
>>>responsibility for their own destiny (ie. people who work).

>>Really, those poor, homeless, and hungry children should just take 
>>responsibility for their lives and find a job.  Funding programs such as 
>>WIC will just encourage infants and children to be lazy bums.

>Those poor, homeless and hungry children should have had parents responsible
>enough to realize they couldn't afford to feed children.  If they could
>have controlled their hormones there wouldn't be a problem.  

It sounds like you are blaming poor, homeless and hungry children for being 
born to parents who's sex lives you don't approve of.  They should have had 
responsible parents?  I don't think they had much say in the matter.  This 
is really bizzare.

>You tell me which
>is the worse crime, society refusing to pay deadbeats or deadbeats knowingly
>bringing children into the world whom they cannot feed.  Would any decent
>person bring children into this world to watch them starve?  I think not.

Whether or not these people are "decent", the fact remains that there are 
millions of poor, homeless, and hungry children in the world.  They exist.  
What do you suggest we do about them?

>And yes, wasteful social programs WILL encourage children to be bums because
>they learn by the example of their parents.

>Only an idiot would hold children responsible for the stupidity and 
>cruelty of their parents.  If programs that help these children could be
>enacted that would truly be uncorruptable and beneficial to them, they would
>be warranted.

Such as?

>>>This is not meant to imply that certain situations don't exist where some
>>>assistance is warranted, but rather that many more exist that would be
>>>better solved by encouraging self-dependence rather than state-dependence.
> 
>>But when it comes to abortion, you would rather have the state take charge 
>>than let the pregnant woman make her own decision about her life and her body?
> 
>Abortion is murder.  It's not a question of just the mother's life, but also
>the baby's.  The laws of this country already state that murder is wrong so
>in fact the state already has control over this issue.  The only problem is
>in making people aware of what abortion really is... cold blooded, vicious,
>violent, painful MURDER.  

You may think abortion is murder, but the laws of the U.S. do not.  Abortion 
happens to be perfectly legal.  But just out of curiousity, what kind of 
punishment do you think women who have abortions should recieve?

>This isn't the forum to discuss abortion.  If you would like to argue it go
>to talk.abortion. 

I'm reading it on talk.abortion.  Where are you?

>Edward Simmonds

				.... Heather. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights