From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 16:22:56 GMT

In article <C0FAKM.1rE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>Let me make this plain and simple.  If you start with the premise that
>the preborn baby is a person, then all other considerations are moot.

Let me make this plain and simple. It you start with the premise that
the z/e/f is not a person, then all other considerations are moot.
This premise, unlike yours, has been repeatedly backed up by evidence.

>For example: if you had a choice between sacrificing your leg, or sacrificing
>your mother, which would you choose?  I'd sacrifice my leg.  Murder is wrong.  
>It is my contention that the preborn baby is a person, and that it deserves
>all rights implied by that label.  
>
Yes, it certainly is your contention. Of course, you have yet to
provide a shred of evidencetha tit is anything more then so much
mindless blathering.

>Compassion? Of course I have compassion.  But just when does compassion
>warrant murder?  Since when does any mother have the right to have her
>child MURDERED to protect herself from a medical problem?  Its easy
>for you to talk about being compassionate.  Why not try a little compassion
>for that poor baby you want hacked into little pieces.  
>
Try to use unambigous terms Eddie. There is no child being murdered,
nor is there any baby being 'hacked into little bits'. There is a
fetus being removed from the body of a woman. All you are trying to do
here is drag in a lot of emotional baggage.
BTW Eddie, do you support laws which would force individuals to donate
blood/organs/tissues to save the lives of others? If your position is
consistant, you will need to answer yes. If not, then you are
embracing a position which forces women to donate their bodies, while
denying the same forced donation to save the lives of born, living,
wanted people.

>The woman incurs the responsibility to suffer virtually any amount of
>physical damage, yes.  There would of course be exceptions depending on
>the specifics of this "damage".  There is no way to make a man physically
>at risk for his partners pregnancy.  The father has a financial and
>moral responsibility towards his children.  
>
Nice to know that you don't mind forcing others to take risks which
you, yourself, are unable/unwilling to undergo.
Heather, perhaps this one will be willing to take you up on your
contractual offer wrt using his body to save a fetus?

>Edward Simmonds- getting sick of repeating things to people who don't read
>                 what he has already posted  
>
That's ok, we're all no doubt getting sick of seeing you post the same
mindless unsubstantiated claims too. Feel free to stop, if you wish.

Now Eddie, I'm going to bring forth an actual case history, and lets
see how your "pro-life" convictions hold up. This is the same case
that "doctor" PHoney has repeatedly refused to comment on, so you can
feel free to dodge the question too.

In the recent past, the media was full of the case of an anencephalic
infant, whose parents wished to donate her organs before she died.
Death, in cases of anencephalia, is inevitable within a matter of
days. The NRL challenged the case in the courts, and stopped the
donations on the grounds that the neonate was not yet legally dead.
Would you have supported the parents in their decision to donate the
organs, or would you have supported the NRLs intervention?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion