From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 03:14:24 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<Sep14.172920.46956@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
><tzwnpsr.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>|> <Sep12.072322.84133@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>|> ><xbnnk4=.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
...
>|> >	Nobody on the pro-life side (that I know of) proposes to enact state
>|> >controls over the womb.  
>|> 
>|> So a woman can choose to empty out the contents of her womb and you
>|> won't mind?
>
>	No, I wouldn't, unless of course she killed her unborn child in the
>process.

So, if the fetus is removed intact and alive you would approve of an
abortion?  Now the fetus will die shortly after it's removal because the
technology doesn't exist to keep an 8 week fetus alive.  But then, that's
not the woman's fault - that's the fault of technology.

>|>  Why do I find this hard to believe?
>
>	Couldn't tell ya.

Oh, I think you can tell me.  Right after you read this, I'm sure you'll
tell me.

>|>  Gee, if the state
>|> gives you control over your car, as long as you don't drive it
>|> anywhere, do you still feel like you have control over it?
>
>	If the state acknowledges my right to drive a car provided I don't kill
>or maim anyone else with it, yes, I feel like I have pretty good control over it.

Nope, not the conditions I stated.  If you can't drive it anywhere, no
matter what, then what control do you have over it?

>|> >                         We're merely proposing that a woman not be allowed to
>|> >kill the child for whose existence and presence in her womb she is responsible.
>|> 
>|> There is no child in a woman's womb.
>
>	This is a factual error.  A young human being lives within her.  You have
>already acknowledged elsewhere that the unborn child is a living human being;
>don't try to back down now.  

I never back down.  I would admit a mistake, I would rethink my position
given new information, I would honestly answer any question I felt was
appropriate to the discussion.  But I wouldn't "back down".

>                             You merely believe (if I interpret you correctly)
>that this particular living human being's life isn't worth a plugged nickel.

Nonsense.  I'm sure a fetus has worth greater than a nickel to those
people who *want* it.

>|> >That the creation and development of the child occurs in her womb is incidental. 
>|> 
>|> So many pregnant women would be surprised to hear this.
>
>	The location of the development of the child is not the issue.  If it is
>within a woman's financial and technological means, she may certainly remove the
>child from her womb.  But she must not kill it or allow it to die.

The location of the fetus is precisely the issue.  If it were just growing
in some test tube somewhere we wouldn't be having this discussion.  The
*issue* is that some women do not want to be pregnant.  These women
require a method of terminating a pregnancy.  If location wasn't the issue
then these women wouldn't need abortion.

>|> >I would not object to a woman removing the child from her womb so long as she did
>|> >not kill it in the process.
>|> 
>|> So if there was a way to remove the 8 week fetus from the lining and hand
>|> it to you still alive, then you would approve of abortion?  Of course,
>|> the fetus would die shortly after removal, but heck, as long as it was
>|> removed alive it's ok.  Right?
>
>	No.  If it died, the woman was clearly negligent for removing it.  

Nonsense.  If I remove you bodily from my home and you get hit by a car in
front of my house - tough cookies.  It would not be my fault.

>	                                                                   She
>must have some reasonable method of preserving and protecting its life after it
>is out of the womb.  Merely removing it and then neglecting it to death hardly
>satisfies her responsibilities as a parent to her child.

Uh, Steve.  Do you know what "adoption" means?  Do you know that when a
woman wants to put her child up for adoption she never sees it?  That if
it dies after it is born IT'S NOT HER FAULT.

>|> BTW, please set your right margins such that a few responses don't cause
>|> the ugly line wrap you see above.  If you need help with this let me
>|> know.
>
>	I need help with this.  Thanks.

I tried.


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.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion