From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 05:26:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.214948.3348@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>Possible reasoning process:
>>1) Abortion is illegalized
>>2) Woman gets pregnant
>>3) Woman doesn't want her child
>>4) Woman looks to abortion to "solve" her problem
>>5) Woman goes to an underground clinic to get an abortion
>>6) Woman might die as a result of the abortion.
>>
>>Let's see, look at step 4.  No one forced her to go there in the first place.
>>Perhaps there is something wrong with killing your own human sons and
>>daughters?  
>
>Your level of compassion is apparently as dismal as you earlier
>indicated.  You don't give a shit if anyone lives or dies, you just
>want to protect your notions of right and wrong.

I don't see how compassion = allowing women to kill their fellow humans
in them.  Perhaps my tone is a bit confusing, but it would be better if 
no abortions were done in the first place legal or illegal.  That way,
not only do the mothers avoid the possible complications of abortion,
the unborn sons and daughters REMAIN alive.  Why have two victims when
you can have two victors?

BTW, according to data from the National Center for Health Statistics,
the legalization of abortion was not responsible for reducing abortion
related deaths.  The discovery of antibiotics in the early 1940s did that by 
providing a treatment for infection.  There is a very very noticable drop
from 1940 to 1946.  The graph resembles an exponentially declining graph.

Abortion, legal or illegal, kills the unborn child within them as its main
objective.  Women may die in the process, but this does happen when abortion
is illegal OR legal.  Women can die as a result of legalized abortion too.

Again, I ask, why make two losers when you can get two winners instead?

>
>When you start showing some caring for people instead of your ideas
>then maybe I'll start to care what your opinions are.  Until then I
>suggest a stroll through parts of Oakland might be appropriate as a
>lesson in what people have to live with on a daily basis.  You can
>tell the signle mothers there that they would be happier supporting 
>ten kids on welfare instead of three.
>
Even if they had their ten kids, I'm sure they would still see to their
protection with all their heart and soul.  Also remember that humans
are resources too.  I'm not sure how familiar you are with big families
but there is a lot of helping going on with each other.  Older siblings
taking care of younger siblings.  Younger siblings making sure others are
okay.  Older siblings taking care of their parents and doing their best
to help out.  

The alternative, of course, is to have dead children instead sanctioned
by the abortion laws.

>>As for the plight of the woman, perhaps there are lots of ways people
>>can help.  I don't know all the alternatives but there are many volunteer
>>organizations whose aim is to help those who are in need of comfort, 
>>counseling, alternatives, etc.
>
>Pushing the problem onto somebody else _again_?
>
There is more than one way to serve your family, friends, country, and
community.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion