From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: COMPROMISE AND THE ABORTION TOPIC
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:00:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.012725.13783@bsu-ucs> 
00bbharris@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:

> All i've seen thus far in this newsnet (and i'm new to it) is a bunch of guys
> debating what is essentially a woman's decision.  But, being a man myself
> i find myself needing to post.  (I am after all, gay... as if)

I think you'll find that the vast majority of women do not 
support unrestricted abortion-on-demand.  Polls tend to show 
that women want to give the child some legal protection.
Simple restrictions like waiting periods and informed
consent provisions have especially widespread support. 

> The biggest compromise is to leave abortin safe and legal, and then let 
> the individual decide based on morals and self-identity and religion (if 
> need be).

This is not really a compromise, it is the pro-choice position. 
A real compromise would be to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the
issue to the states where it rightfully belongs.  Let the people
vote on the issue.  Judicial fiat is no way to decide such a 
controversial issue.  

> Most pro-lifers don't know that the vast majority of pro-choicers are
> personally against it (like myself) but politically support abortion. 

If you feel that abortion is wrong, then why support its legality? 
Why is your answer different when you consider the killing of a 
born person? 

> Legalization will not see a great increase of abortion as many pro-lifers 
> feel.

It already has.  After Roe v. Wade was decided, the number of abortions
increased steadily for several years.  And I've posted articles showing
that permissive abortion laws often have the effect of reducing the
practice of contraception.  

> Secondly, pro-lifers usually talk of adoption.  Under normal circumstances, 
> i would agree, but in America (where adoption homes and foster homes and
> orphanages are poorly run and funded) i am highly against it.  

If you're against children suffering in foster homes and orphanages,
then why don't you kill them too?  After all, you'd be doing them a 
favor, right?   How can YOU tell a child that they have no right to
live because their life doesn't meet YOUR expectations?  

> Last time i
> checked, which was two years ago, roughly 65% of those who are put up for
> adoption are left there until 18.  

Documentation, please.  

> Then, what we have are a group of uneducated
> individuals, if they even survive entact.  

That's right, uneducated individuals should not be allowed to live.
How kind of you, "Brandon".

> Are all those pro-adoption-lifers
> going to adopt a child they save, 

Sure.  You stop killing children, and people will adopt them. 

> Thirdly, i'd rather see the potential for life die than watch two lives go 
> (the mother and the child) in an unsafe abortion.  

False dichotomy.  Nobody has to die.

> Making abortion illegal WILL NOT make it go away, people.
> Let's try and end this on a different level.

Nobody ever said that abortion would "go away" completely. 
But that's not a justification for unrestricted abortion-
on-demand.  Rape and homicide will never go away either...


>Brandon


---
Doug Holtsinger
'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that 
Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.