From: psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:22:37 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Nov17.042749.7615@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes ...
>> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>>> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
>>>>Society does offer an alternative to pregnancy - it's called abstinence.
>
>First, abstinence is clearly not an alternative to pregnancy, since it
>neither terminates an existing pregnancy nor assures the prevention of
>a future pregnancy.  Neither does a lack of abstinence assure the
>onset of pregnancy, for that matter.

Huh?  Abstinence = no pregnancy.  That was my point.

>Second, society does not have much of a problem with abortion.  While
>some members of society do, they are still rather notably in the
>minority.  It looks like it is _your_ problem, since I, as a duly
>appointed member of society and typical respresentative thereof, have
>very little interest what goes on in anyone else's bedroom.

So you *think* so?  I agree that society isn't willing to place restrictions
on abortion (right now?).  I also believe that society doesn't think that 
abortion is simply OK.  Most opinion polls I have seen say that a vast 
majority of people dislike abortion being used as birth control (among other
things).

>>I really don't care what goes on in your bedroom, but as a member of this
>>society I expect your to behave with responsibility when it comes to
>>creating another member (and to not kill said member at your convenience).
>
>I expect you to behave responsibly also.  Shall we consider adopting a
>set of laws assured to enforce _your_ responsible behavior?

No, I think you missunderstand my point.  I don't think a set of laws will 
*solve* the problem either.  That's why I'm calling for people to behave 
responsibly so that the government doesn't have to keep fixing our problems.
I never once mentioned a set of laws or that government should do this to
you.  All I said was what I thought was reasonable behavior to expect from
everyone in *this* society.

I fear the loss of fundamental rights as much as the next person.  That
is why I'm against things like gun control, and for school choice, etc.  
I don't believe that killing an unborn child is a fundamental right, but 
I do fear that government control in these areas will lead to the further 
errosion of other rights.

At the same time I think the government has a vested interest in protecting
the unborn to maintain an orderly, livable, workable society.  Even if they
don't restrict abortions in any way, I think the legal/technical stance 
should be that our government does not encrourage, assist or provide for 
abortions.

I'd rather see us, as a society, take the stance that abortion is wrong 
and that we must all do something to make it uneccessary, un-OK, unreasonable,
un-whatever, to have one.  Don't put words in my mouth, I'm not calling
for the government to interfere - unless it must as a very last resort.

Notice my "right now?" comment above?  I think that if we don't pull together 
and acknowledge that killing an unborn child is just plain wrong 
*as a society* (and do something about it) then we face self destruction, 
either from a government that has to step in where it will only do harm
or from a populace that has lost all reasonable definition of what a 
moral/workable society is.

BTW, if you can't agree with this, then I have no option but to label you
as pro-abortion, and not just simply pro-choice.

I challenge pro-choice and pro-lifers both to move with me to the middle
on this.  Let's do something instead of waiting for it to fall apart 
around us.
-Paul
--
---
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh