From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:21:27 GMT
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) wrote:
>
>> Do you honestly believe that every abortion can be boiled down to just
>> a case of a fetus "getting in a woman's way"?
>
>Certainly, except for those cases where the woman's life is at stake,
>since there's no point in letting them both die.

First, let me say that this is a refreshing change from some pro-life
advocates who seem perfectly willing to let both the mother and fetus
die.

Second, let me point out that, particularly in the cases of single mothers
with poor jobs, a pregnancy could easily be a financially debilitating
experience, and the child could very well grow up beneath the poverty
level in a less-than-loving environment.  Is it fair to put a child 
through that?

>> Right now, your assertion that a human fetus must be kept alive at all
>> costs leads me to believe that you really haven't thought about the
>> costs involved.  
>
>Excuse me.  I said nothing about "at all costs".  What I AM talking about
>is --simply leaving nature alone--.   The cost in human lives, suffering,
>grief, and frequently even money, is far greater if a child is killed by
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>abortion, than if he is not.

Suzanne, how much does the average abortion cost?

How much do 18 or so years of food, clothing, and other necessities of
life cost?

I rest my case.

>> otherwise, it just appears
>> to me that you're speaking in ideals, not practical terms that could
>> apply to real life.
>
>What else is life for but to strive to bring ideals into reality?  

Working with the reality we have.  Certainly, we can -- and, I'd claim,
should -- improve our reality as best we can, but bringing any sort of
ideal into reality is ludicrous.

>If
>not all children are loved now, if so many children are so unloved that
>they are put to death at the rate of millions a year, then obviously,
>we have a long way to go toward making our society better.

Apart from substituting fetuses for children, I agree with the above.
Start with comprehensive and early sex education, as well as measures
to improve living conditions for the working class, and I'll be there
helping out.

>> You feel strongly about abortion.  So do I, and I honestly want to
>> know why you feel the way you do, in terms that I can understand.  I'm
>> not out to 'convert' you or to belittle your beliefs.
>
>Oh no?  I wonder.   

I feel this was unnecessary.  Is it so hard to take statements at face
value, even if you don't care for the face?

>I am pro-life for two reasons, Brian.
>
>1) Because I was once an unborn child myself.

The nullity of this argument astounds me.

>2) Because I am a mother myself and know full well the immeasurable 
>   value of what it is that abortion destroys.

To you.  Other mothers-to-be obviously feel differently.  Grieve for
the waste if you must, but don't force them to bend to your views.

--
--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post
  andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu                        would make even less sense.

                Steve Chaney Memorial Anti-Roman Catholic .sig
        "Gettin' ecstatic and sorta dramatic and doin' The Vatican Rag!"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion