From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: MEN FOR CHOICE.
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 18:17:53 GMT

<1992Jul22.193410.6389@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) said:
><1992Jul20.223103.5326@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>weber@rhrk.uni-kl.de (Christoph Weber-Fahr [KIT]) said:
>>> Nevertheless I also think that convenience is one motivation for a pro-
>>> abortion position. And it is one of the worse motivations in a 
>>> moral sense.
>
>> Convenience might be one small motivation way down the line somewhere, but
>> speaking for the pro-abortion block on this net I'd say that risk, cost,
>> and freedom would be the three major motivations (in no particular order).
>>
>> Risk: It is far more dangerous to a woman to go through childbirth than it
>> is to get an early term abortion.  The statistics range from 10 to 30
>> times more *deadly*.
>
>Even if your statement were true, the relative health risks of early-term 
>abortion and childbirth is an argument limited to early-term abortion,
>it does not extend to late-term abortion. I doubt that most pro-abortionists
>would limit themselves to supporting early-term abortion.

Yes, my statements are true.  Why do you even bother bringing up late term
abortions?  They account for such a small percentage of abortions they are
negligible.

>> Cost: It is far more cost efficient to support abortion on demand than to
>> support the welfare and social results of unwanted/unaffordable children.
>> Something on the order of $1 to $14.
>
>It is far more cost efficient to kill unwanted/unaffordable born children 
>than to support them with taxpayer's money. Why should your argument
>be limited to unborn children?  

Because the born child is no longer wholely dependent on the woman's
resources.  And because I say so.

>> Freedom: We currently have no laws which allow the subjigation(sp?) of
>> citizens to the slavery of others (the draft and encarceration are the
>> gray areas).  The slippery slope of bodily servitude is not something that
>> should be encouraged.  The 'right' of government to control bodily
>> autonomy is not granted to the federal government, and it has been
>> determined to be a violation of personal privacy.  
>
>But why don't fetuses enjoy the same right to bodily autonomy? 

Because they aren't recognized as persons in the Constitution.  And, in
case it somehow escapes you, a fetus is the object that results in the
subjication of women.

>In the vast majority of abortions, their bodies are ripped to pieces.

Yup.  Your point?

>> And don't forget, lives were lost gaining and maintaining these freedoms.
>
>Lives were lost due to starvation, poverty, and poor health. Should we 
>legalize bank robbery so these people can buy food and obtain good health 
>care? 

No, bank robbery victimizes people.


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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion