From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 18:34:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes ...
>>>So this means that if you have sex and use contraceptives trying not to have
>>>a baby, then the contraceptives fail, then that means that you should still
>>>be held accountable for your actions. 
>>
>>Using this same reasoning, I could just as easily argue that people who get
>>in car accidents should be allowed to die(an expected consequence of driving),
>>and people who have heart attacks, or catch a communicable disease, or get
>>lung cancer, should be allowed to die, as each is an expected consequence
>>of poor diet, socialize with people, or smoking (or socializing with smokers).
>
>If you are suggesting AIDS, then I say:
>  Once someone gets AIDS, we must try to treat them non-judgementally and
>try to give them some care and compassion.

No, as a matter of fact, AIDS hadn't even occurred to me.  I was thinking
of things like smallpox, measles, and the like.

>   When talking about abortions, however, the issue isn't that the woman
>would die.  The issue is that the unborn son or daughter is caught in the
>crossfire because of the actions of the father and mother.
>
>   No, I do not wish to get into another abortion debate.

I really hate cowards who want to try to get in the last word by debating
then saying they don't want to debate.  If you don't want to debate, don't
post.

As for unborn son/daughter, I might point out that it isn't necessarily
either.  "It" would be more appropriate for the early stages, as no sex
organs have developed.  (and for the pedants out there, sexuality and 
gender are not determined solely by genes)

>>In fact, however, any activity has some associated risk.  The fact that we
>>use seatbelts when driving, and have hospitals and medicines and insurance
>>indicates that after-the-fact corrections are widely accepted and even
>>expected.
>>
>>So why should abortion be any different?

>Killing the elderly because they burden us and our systems is also an
>after-the-fact correction.  Getting rid of immigrants after flooding
>our shores can also be construed to be an after-the-fact correction.
>
>I have nothing against 'correcting' someone with AIDS.
>
>I do have something against killing the child for the actions of the mother
>and the father.  The 'correction' itself, is not sound, so therefore, 
>the 'correction' in this case must not be used as it is very destructive.

Do you have any notion as to the difference between a first-trimester 
abortion and the murder of an immigrant or elderly person?  Yes, abortion
is destructive.  But so is forced childbirth; and in my opinion more so.

What is even more destructive are laws that attempt to take control of
people's bodies by requiring childbirth.

But that you apparently have no qualms about exterminating people with AIDS
leads one to have serious doubts about the nobleness of your motives in
wishing to protect "unborn children".

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc