From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Summary: Abortion kills a child.
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:38:46 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR

In article <1992Sep27.161223.24601@ugle.unit.no> leifmk@Lise.Unit.NO
(Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y) writes:

[I realized after I started this that Leif is probably not a native english
speaker, and as such I compliment his efforts and I don't want to unduly
criticize him.  However, several others, who don't have the same excuse
have made the same mistake, so I think this needs to be said.]

>In article <1992Sep27.093834.5371@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>,
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> > I think instead of "pro-choice" or pro-abortion" we should use a term
> > that is more accurate.  The term "pro-infanticide", or more simply,
> > "Pro-Murder" is the correct term that should be used, since after all,
> > abortion is the outright killing of children.
...
>That's your opinions.  If there has turned up any solid evidence that a
>partially developed fetus (like 12 weeks or less) is conscious and aware,
>then I would agree that it is indeed a child.  Otherwise, my fine friend,
>your posting is a prime example of fascist bullshit.
>
>Personally, I don't believe a fetus should be called a child, not until it
>is developed enough to survive outside the womb.

If you are going to argue about words, you ought to at least look them
up.

A fertilized egg is a child.  A zygote and a fetus are children. 
Abortion unambiguously kills a child.  Abortion is in most cases a
woman hiring a doctor to kill her child.  These are verifiable facts. 
If you have a problem with this, then you don't just have a problem
with me, you have a problem with english, with the truth, with reality.

To say that a fetus is not a child is to redefine the word "child".  If
this is not done out of ignorance, it is done to blunt the emotional
impact of the language, because the language itself is biased against
abortion rights in this case.  Be honest.

Before I am attacked for my position on abortion, none of the above is to
say that abortion is wrong or that it should be outlawed.  Having said that
however, why is it that some people who are for abortion rights gets so mad
when abortion is simply described in plain english or pictures of it are
shown?

>Further, a newborn baby
>can hardly be said to be fully aware.  I don't view even newborn babies as
>actual human beings--they are potential human beings.  Getting born means
>you're only halfway there.    ^^^^^^^^^

Statements like this are exactly why I am against abortion: "Getting born
means you're only halfway there [to being human]."  I've heard it seriously
proposed that we allow "abortions" up to two years of age.  Abortion
cheapens human life.

Is awareness required to be human?  Can we simply kill those who don't have
it, like those in a coma, when they become inconvenient?  If not, why not?

>The world is overpopulated already.

So let's kill the unwanted.  I don't mean to pick on Leif -- many people
express this opinion.  I find it sad and sick at the same time.

What evidence do you have that legal abortion cuts down on the number of
unwanted children?  It may seem self-evident to you that it does, but it
isn't.  The availability of cheap, legal abortions changes people's behavior
(you have to at least concede that it might).  What actual data do you
have?
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6217 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4719