From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: COMPROMISE AND THE ABORTION TOPIC
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:03:45 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <1993Jan23.055439.10402@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:

>In article <1993Jan23.020048.17561@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan19.012725.13783@bsu-ucs> 
>>00bbharris@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
>>
>>> All i've seen thus far in this newsnet (and i'm new to it) is a bunch of guys
>>> debating what is essentially a woman's decision.  But, being a man myself
>>> i find myself needing to post.  (I am after all, gay... as if)
>>
>>I think you'll find that the vast majority of women do not 
>>support unrestricted abortion-on-demand.  Polls tend to show 
>>that women want to give the child some legal protection.
>>Simple restrictions like waiting periods and informed
>>consent provisions have especially widespread support. 
>>

[lots deleted, because I deal with it in another follow-up]

>>> Secondly, pro-lifers usually talk of adoption.  Under normal circumstances, 
>>> i would agree, but in America (where adoption homes and foster homes and
>>> orphanages are poorly run and funded) i am highly against it.  

Still the supply is far less than the demand.  You are beginning to sound
like a pro-abort, not a pro-choicer.  Do you think being adopted, or
shunted from one foster home to another, is a fate worse than death? 
Edward Simmonds could tell you a thing or two. [Copy of this post goes to
him.]  In fact, he could tell you lots of things neither I nor Doug could.
You see, he is adopted, along with several siblings.

>>If you're against children suffering in foster homes and orphanages,
>>then why don't you kill them too?  After all, you'd be doing them a 
>>favor, right?   How can YOU tell a child that they have no right to
>>live because their life doesn't meet YOUR expectations?  
[....]
>>> Then, what we have are a group of uneducated
>>> individuals, if they even survive entact.  
>>
>>That's right, uneducated individuals should not be allowed to live.
>>How kind of you, "Brandon".

>You are fantasizing again doug. Take your medicine.

No, the guy to whom Doug is talking is fantasizing.  Doug is trying to
give him a dose of his own medicine.  

>>> Are all those pro-adoption-lifers
>>> going to adopt a child they save, 
>>
>>Sure.  You stop killing children, and people will adopt them. 

>They don't even adopt the ones out there already.

They would if it weren't for all the #$@$!&%! red tape.  But must the
pro-lifers do all the cutting?  Why can't you pro-choicers live up
to your name and lend a hand, instead of using stuff like the above
as the excuse to promote the pro-abortion agenda of Planned Parenthood
and other "pro-choice" organizations?

>Secondly, unless you are going to legislate that a woman must get 
>pre-natal care, and must refrain from smoking, drinking, etc. for the 
>duration of her pregnancy, you are only going to bring more sick,
>brain damaged children who will never be adopted into the world. Is
>part of your theoretical legislation going to be controling the 
>behavior of pregnant women?

I don't know.  What are your thoughts on the matter?  For sure, I would
rather you gave the life of those children a chance (as in: "Give peace
a chance.").

>>> Thirdly, i'd rather see the potential for life die than watch two lives go 
>>> (the mother and the child) in an unsafe abortion.  
>>
>>False dichotomy.  Nobody has to die.

Except for ectopic pregnancy, this is true in
 all but 1 in a hundred thousand cases.

>If you think that people don't die in illegal abortions, you are 
>ignorant or stupid. Which is it, doug?

Ditto legal abortions.  No statistically significant difference, if past
history is any indication.

>>> Making abortion illegal WILL NOT make it go away, people.
>>> Let's try and end this on a different level.

Keeping it legal does not make deaths (of the mothers, that is) go away.

>>Nobody ever said that abortion would "go away" completely. 
>>But that's not a justification for unrestricted abortion-
>>on-demand.  Rape and homicide will never go away either...

>Rape and homocide have demonstrable negative effects on society as a whole,
>as well as on individual members of society. Abortion does not. This is
>an invalid metaphor.			      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The highlighted statement is false.  See my post, "The PAS of NancyJo Mann,
founder of WEBA, Part 1" posted earlier today, for a start.  People 
involved in WEBA, Project Rachel, and most other forms of post-abortion
counseling, could tell you lots more.

>Robert Johnston

>'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that 

Here there was a patently dishonest line, inserted by Robert Johnston.
Maybe Doug had something relevant to say, but you'll have to finger
the address to find out what the topic was.

Pro-choice, your name's a lie; you don't even want people to see all
the documentation available to help make their choices.

Peter Nyikos