From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Steve Franklin says....
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:41:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.120241.13144@cs.dal.ca>
franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr7.011006.4421@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr6.202101.10777@cs.dal.ca>
>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>>Kevin Welch has said that women should not be allowed to abort unless
>>there is a 100% chance that they'll die without one, and the entirety
>>of the pro-choicers and a significant fraction of the pro-lifers are
>>*ticked* because of that.

>   Well, then Kevin is coming from the right direction... I can't place
>a value at 100%, but I sure agree that abortion should be treated with
>more seriousness in the future. In my mind, there is little if any
>justification for an abortion, and we are told that high risk of
>death is a proper reason for abortion. Personally, I'm not sure
>I even agree with this...

Lovely.  All right, mr Franklin: what gives you the right to risk
these women's lives?

>>>  By the way, I figure, whether I am right or not, why take the chance.

>>Because there's a real live breathing FemalePerson who doesn't want to
>>be pregnant.  Don't forget her.

>   Doesn't want to be pregnant? Then dont' have sex. That's the only
>guarantee where another kid doesn't get hurt. Oh, sorry, another
>inanimate/lump-of-flesh/fetus... 

1) *Another* sex-is-only-for-children moron???  <grumble>

2) No 'kid' is hurt in an abortion.  Rather, a 'kid' is prevented from
   coming into being.  A 'kid' is a born being.

>>>Just like capitol punishment, once you abort the fetus, there's no
>>>turning back. If you choose to have the pregnancy, then at any time
>>>after that, if you feel that the kid just isn't for you, then place him/her
>>>up for adoption. Abortion is too serious of an option to be treated lightly.

>>So is adoption, you idiot.

>   God you all are predictable... Get the least bit annoyed and what
>do you turn to? Insults... well done Elizabeth. In any case, I assure you
>I am not an idiot. Stop writing your arguments for an idiot. You know
>what an idiot is? A person who hasn't been given the gift of intelligence,

idiot: 1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.  2. Psychol. a
person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental
retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an
intelligence quotient under 25.
(Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition Unabridged)

I refrained from insulting you.  Instead, I simply stated a fact which
is self-evident to everyone but you: you are an idiot by definition 1.
This is evidenced by the fact that you think that adoption can be
taken casually.

>and when you call _me_ an idiot, you don't offend me, but more so, those
>you refer to.

This would be true if I had been using definition 2.  They have a
legitimate reason for not using their minds, namely not having much of
a one.  You, on the other hand, simply refuse to use yours.

>   Adoption is a serious option, but the results are a hell of a lot
>less sever. THe kid makes it through the pregnancy, a family gets to
>expand, and we pro-lifers don't feel like there was just another death. 
>Granted, there are adoptions that turn out awfully, but you know what?
>We can say that we at least gave it a try. 

I'm glad to see you are finally granting that adoption is a serious
option.  I'm sorry to see that you refuse to acknowledge that
pregnancy is not a trivial thing.  I'm appalled by how important you
seem to think you are.

--
"Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain."
                    - Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller

Pro-Choice         Anti-Roe                 - E. Elizabeth Bartley
Newsgroups: talk.abortion