From: serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:55:46 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center


>><1992Aug19.163139.22864@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin)
 ><1992Aug19.192521.27445@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) 

>>	I do not agree that a woman has a right to an abortion in the case
>>of consensual sex.  Men and women both must take responsibility for their 
>>actions.  If you are going to have sex you must take whatever precautions are
>>necessary to prevent pregnancy, however, you must also be willing to accept the
>>consequences if such precautions fail and a pregnancy occurs.  Abortion is NOT
>>a valid method of birth control.  If neither the man nor the woman has the
>>emotional or financial ability or desire to raise a child then one must take
>>the only alternative available, DON'T HAVE SEX!  Who gave us the right to
>>have sex regardless of the cost?  

>"A right isn't something that you're given. A right is something that
>no one can take away." Your question makes no sense. A better
>question would be "Who gave you the authority to impose your religious
>beliefs on people who do not practice your religion?"
>Now, if you believed that a fetus was equal to a human being, and
>had an inherent "right to life", then your argument might be
>worthy of consideration (although we would still have to balance
>the rights of the fetus against the rights of the mother). However,
>the last paragraph of your message convinces me that you don't
>believe that fetuses have a right-to-life.
>If a fetus is not equal to a human being, then no human being is
>harmed in an abortion. On the other hand, if abortion is illegal, 
>then human beings ARE harmed...the women forced to carry pregnancies
>against their will, and the women who are forbidden to have sex
>because they can't afford the costs of pregnancy. I think you'll
>agree that this would make for bad legislation.

>>	I do not agree that a woman should not be allowed to an abortion in
>>cases of rape, incest, or where the mothers life is in danger.  

>This is why I assume that you don't believe that the fetus is equivelent
>to a human being.
>Unless you're part of the "Abortion is murder, except in cases of rape
>and incest" crowd.
>Do you think that laws prohibiting abortion would make the world a
>better place to live? If so, why?

What is wrong with abstinence if the woman (and man) cannot afford the 
consequences of a pregnancy?  I really think you missed the boat entirely.  
People must begin to take responsibility for their actions.  If you choose 
to have sex, you must be aware that birth control does not offer a 100% 
guarantee that pregnancy will not occur.  You MUST be willing to accept the 
consequences of your actions.  If you cannot afford the costs of pregnancy 
then abstinence is the only way you will be sure that pregnancy will not 
occur. Let's face it folks, we have sex organs in order to reproduce.  They
are not there as a toy.  If we already took responsibilty for that which we
do voluntarily, abortion would be a non-issue because the few abortions being 
performed would be in cases of rape, incest, and those cases where a woman's
life is in danger. Yes, prohibiting what I call birth control abortions, 
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity