From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 28 Aug 92 03:56:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services


From martyg@ocf.Berkeley.EDU Thu Aug 27 18:54:06 1992
   This is the ghost of c60a-zg@volga.berkeley.edu.  I have died and have now
come back to lfe in a new extremely slow environment.

   Anyway, do you think you can do me a favor?  You see I have no 
problem reading rn but I have a great deal of trouble posting.  Do you
think you can post my response to the net?

[as follows.  RF]
------------------

|> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
|>
|>>Gee, you're still equating slavery with abortion?  Haven't you learned
|>>that FORCED CHILDBIRTH EQUATES WITH SLAVERY.  And neither is right.
|>
|>This assumes, of course, that the unborn is just a scum sucking parasite
|>stuck in the mother's womb sucking the life out of the mohter, and therefore,
|>we should have the right to terminate that parasite.

|Nonsense, it makes no such assumption.  Here is a question to ponder
|and discuss (if you can do so rationally and without hatred):

|Is requiring a woman to be pregant and give birth a form of bodily
|servitude akin to slavery?

|I lean towards a yes answer (although it is perhaps not as simple a
|question as some believe).  If you disagree, I would be interested
|in hearing your rationale.


Yes, if the unborn is truly just a piece of tissue in no way pertaining
to a new human being, or if it is a parasite or a bunch of cells similar
to a cancer, then I agree that the woman (or man) should be allowed to
have the "operation."  Forcing a woman (or man) to carry this debilitating
tissue/cancer/parasite does seem rather "tyrannical."  Those who would
like to protect tissues/cancers/parasites would seem like major whackos.

However, if abortion is merely a "medical operation" similar to heart surgery
or removing a tumor, then why do women who have gone through abortions
feel very miserable?  Why does it become such a hard task?  There are even
group-therapy sessions for women who have had abortions.  Imagine having
a group therapy session for people who have had their tumors removed 
wondering if it was the right decision to remove their tumor and feeling
bad about removing it.

In addition, if it is "just" a "medical procedure" like any other, then
why are so many people opposed to it?  Sure you might say and shake them
off saying that they are "just a bunch of fundies trying to impose
their views on us."  But this avoids the fact that there are many 
non-religious people out there and even athiests who are very pro-life.

So why would athiests, Jews, Christians, Moslems (note that these
are not blanket statements) band together to protect someone elses
cancer/tissue/parasites?  That would be very crazy of them to do so.
Why would abortion, if it is a merely a "medical procedure" be so
controversial?  

Perhaps because the unborn is human?  

Even if you disagree with the pro-life movement that the unborn is not
human, and even if you believe the unborn is what the mother makes of it,
you cannot argue with nature.  The unborn is what nature makes of it, not
the mother.

So yes, if the unborn is truly a tissue/cancer/tumor/parasite, then
"forcing" a woman to carry the debilitating entity or extension can be 
considered "tyrannical."  However, this assumes that the unborn is a
tissue/cancer/tumor/parasite.  When we assume that the unborn is human
life, then "forcing the woman to carry the debilitating entity or
extension to 'term'" is not slavery, it is preventing a death of someone's
own son or daughter.  

May the Holocaust end and may all life born and unborn, male and female,
Christian, Jew, Moslem, athiest, agnostic and non-agnostic, Asian,
Hispanic, Black White, be respected and treated like true human beings.
-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion