From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:25:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.185934.15283@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.130233.7176@news.uiowa.edu> williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
>>And my unscientific opinion is that there is one major cause for
>>unwanted pregnancy: ineffective birth control.
>
>That unscientific opinion seems to have little basis in this reality.
>
>Few of the "teen" pregnancies are due to ignorance or inaccessible
>birth control, let alone failures.  They're the natural consequence of
>sex by people who WANT to get pregnant or don't care whether or not
>they do.  Unless someone is proposing some sort of mandatory birth
>control (norplant?), birth control policy can't affect that.
>
>-andy

	You are right. Currently for each single mother on welfare 
payments from the government increase with each additional child.
(This follows from the increased cost of having more children,
but the mother does not have to spend the full increase on the
additional child, see?)
	So, the welfare program provides incentive to create more
children out of wedlock.  Because there is no limit to this,
people who want to support this welfare policy must create some form
of limit. Their solution? Abortion.  Yes, much like China, increased
population is a threat to central government capital allocation
schemes.  It is cheaper to kill someone before they cost a lot of
money.
	Now, you respond, 'Aren't they just a blob of cells?' Sure.
In the same sense that you are.  What is it that makes killing
so horrendous in our eyes?  Is it the act in and of itself?
If I never met someone and that person was killed before I had the
chance to met them is that killing ok?  Or is it the potential
which each human being can provide, a truly infinite concept because
of its impossibility due to the murder, which makes us cry in
anguish at death?  The baby has much potential-even more than an
old man.  If you kill the unborn children, people who know the
meaning of life and love will scream in anguish.
	Now you reply, 'What of the mother, who must undergo pain and torture?'
My answer-If you kill someone who crashes into your car and wrecks it,
leaving you slightly injured, does that give you the right to kill them?
Does your injury justify another's death?
	Your answer-"And if the mother's life is in danger?" My answer-
your life, the mother's life, is always in danger.  There is always the
possibility that a car will hit you, that you will have a heart attack,
etc.  If you see a car swerving to hit you, you do your best to avoid it.
If you notice that your diet is high in cholseterol, you eat less
butter and fat or whatever.  To kill, because there is an 'increase'
in risk does not justify the kill.  If she is dead, the argument is moot, neh?
And how many of you net-readers have come within inches of a fatal accident
involving another person? Would the high odds of your near-death experience
have justified your murder of the other person?
	Let us love one another.

				J. Wagner


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush