From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:30:14 GMT

In article <C0q2EJ.Jrq@athena.cs.uga.edu>, hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu
(Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

[regarding abortion to save a woman's life]
>This argument only applies to a very miniscule proportion of abortions
>in this country.  besides, abortion can scarcely be compared to
>self-defense.  The child is not trying to kill his mother.  this is
>a question of killing one innocent person to save the life of
>another innocent person.

What child? At least until the point of viability, there is nothing
more than a conglomerate of cells.

[more stuff deleted to save bandwidth]

>>There is a huge difference.  A born child is a unique, self-contained
>>individual, that can be supported by any capable adult, and has
>>demonstrable
>>rights.  A fetus, prior to viability, is not self-contained, or
>>supportable in
>>any other fashion, and has no demonstrable rights under our laws.
>So.  What does self-sufficiency have to do with the intrinsic value of
>the individual.  If a mother had a baby on a desert island, with no
>other food source for the child, wouldn't it be immoral for her to
>not nurse the child.

Well, if there is no other food source for the child, there is no other
food source, period. (I'm working on the assumption that just about
_anything_ edible can be ground, crushed, etc., with simple tools. If
wrong, HUGE FLAME NOW!!! :-) ) Expanding on the scenario, if she nurses
the child, she'll lost nutrients, the baby won't get enough, and they'll
both die. If she lets the baby starve, at least she has a better chance
of surviving. Wouldn't it be immoral for her to nurse the child?

[still more deleted...]

>>And they are...if you take drugs during a pregnancy that you intend to
>>carry to term, you can be prosecuted.

>Yet, you can kill the baby and it is perfectly legal.

What baby? You're killing off a z/e/f you don't intend to carry to term.
Is there a legal expert who can comment on taking drugs during a
pregnancy that you plan to abort anyway?

[regarding civil disobedience]
>>Nothing says we can't change the laws...nothing says you can't protest.
>>But you can't violate someones rights in doing it.  By blockading a
>>clinic you are inhibiting a woman's right to avail herself of a legal
>>medical procedure.
>But, on the other hand, it may lessen the likelihood that she would kill
>her child.  Obviously, those who blockade clinics feel that it is
>better to (sometimes) disobey the law than to allow a child to be
>legally killed.

WHAT CHILD?!?!?!?!?!?

Sorry, just a reflex.  If you _really_ wanted to save babies, instead
of terrifying women who try to have a legal operation done, why don't
you offer to adopt a child instead? If every pro-life person were to
adopt one child, I think we could significantly lessen the number
of abortions performed per year.

Don't value life that much, huh? I thought not.

Tep
-- 
I don't need you to worry for me 'cause I'm all right | Dear Lord, give
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home.   | me chastity... 
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life.   |    but not yet.
Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone. --B. Joel| --St. Augustine
Newsgroups: talk.abortion