From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:13:28 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

Martin writes:
>Brian writes:
>>...  My comment was made in response to your claim that the
>>"right to life" is inalienable.  It's not.
>
>We hold these truths to be self evident...  right to life, liberty, and
>the pursuit of happiness.

Sorry, no cigar.  I said they weren't 'inalienable', not that they
didn't exist.  If these righs _were_ inalienable, then we would never
be able to lock anyone up in jail, or go to war.  Your "right to life"
can be nullified by due process of law.

>The fetus/unborn is definitely a human life.  Why we don't protect human
>life (when we can do so in this case) remains a mystery.

If it still remains a mystery to you after all our discussions, then I
wonder if you've actually read anything that didn't agree with your own
narrow view of the issues?

Suffice it to say that if the ONLY QUESTION were whether or not to let
a fetus live, the choice would be easy and unanimous.

>>>A rose is a rose is a rose regardless of how the rose was planted.
>>
>>A pregnant victim of rape might not agree with you.  She might think
>>that by forcing her to continue her pregnancy, you're letting the
>>rapist prolong his crime for nine months.  This smacks of slavery, or
>>of at least considering women to be 'second-class'.
>
>By allowing abortion for just about any reason, our unborn children
>become eighth class citizens.  Oops.  Sorry.  I mean non-citizens.  Or
>mere parasites or physical extensions to the mother.

Is your dog a citizen?  Why not?  Is a protozoan a citizen?  Why not?
What is different between an eight-week fetus and a dog that would
cause you to grant the fetus personhood on the same par as you and I,
aside from the fact that the dog's more biologically advanced?

>>What if she needs medication for a psychological disorder?  She'll
>>survive the pregnancy well enough without the drug, of course, but
>>she'll be reduced to a paranoid, schizophrenic mess by the time it's
>>over, and may need to be restrained to keep her from hurting herself.
>>Is this not good enough reason to let her abort?  Not allowing her to
>>have her necessary medication sure sounds like slavery to me.
>
>Yes, there may be "hard cases."  But we also have to remember that over
>98% of all abortions performed (from about 1.6 million a year, or so)
>are for social reasons.

You didn't answer my question.  Yes or no: you're going to force this
woman to give up her medication for nine months?  What if she protests
and tries to take it anyway?  Will you look the other way and let her
fetus be damaged by the medication and possibly miscarried, or will
you toss her into a jail cell and let her slowly go insane there until
she gives birth, and hope then it's not too late for her?

And where did you get your figures?  What are "social reasons"?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau