Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Back from Texas - 2 of 2
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Date: 10 Apr 92 06:08:35 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<31068@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) said:
>So that was why the "pro-choice" arguments advocated by Adrienne etc are
>faulty.
>
>But maybe their conclusions are correct - despite their lack of logic.

Our conclusions are correct for us, if you don't like them, you don't have
to have an abortion.  Pretty simple huh?

>In Adrienne etc., we have a group of people who would allow women to kill
>the entity within them in order to be freed from it.
>
>They will condone the killing of 1.5 million living humans (perhaps not
>persons, but certainly individual instances of our species) every year.
>
>In fact, they go so far as to say, that even if those 1.5 million humans
>were babies in everything but position, they would STILL allow them to be 
>killed.

So far so good.

>Adrienne etc, would have no problems with 1.5 million babies being killed
>every year - AND GET THIS - they warn me not to legislate against it because
>I might get legislated against next!

Not exactly, you are expected to stay out of it because it isn't your body
that's being used against your will.  It isn't your health and life being
threatened against your will.  It isn't your career and education at risk
against your will.

>1.5 million babies - and their argument wouldn't change.
>1.5 million children - and their argument wouldn't change.
>1.5 million people - and their argument wouldn't change.

Not to mention:
1.5 million Jesus's - and our argument wouldn't change.
1.5 million Ghandi's - and our argument wouldn't change.
1.5 million Moses's - and our argument wouldn't change.
1.5 million Messiah's - and our argument wouldn't change.

>I must sit back and watch them do it - 1.5 million every year - just
>because I might be next!

No, because it's not your body being put at risk.

>What they fail to see is that I am already in danger - because I support
>laws against rapists.

A crime perpetrated against the body of another person.

>I support laws against murderers.

A crime perpetrated against the body of another person.

>I support laws against tax dodgers.

A theft of sorts.  Again, a real victim.

>I support laws against reckless drivers.

A danger to every person.

>What they fail to see is that THEY THEMSELVES in supporting similar laws
>(you *do* support laws against rape don't you?) inflict their views on others.

These laws protect the rights of people.

>And finally - what of that final issue - the fact that all of those laws
>force non-action - whereas anti-abortion laws force action (support of the
>foetus).

Some pro-lifers were just arguing how abortion is an action and that not
aborting is a non-action.  You should probably rehearse your lines
together to keep it straight.

>NOTE WELL:  Remember your "irrelevance stance" Adrienne.  The last sort of
>response I should expect from you is that the 1.5 million are NOT babies.
>We all *know* that.  And of course, you don't care what they are ... do you?

Not as long as they are inside of people who do not want them there.  You
missed again Tommy.


Gordon
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.