From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: COUNTINUING
Organization: Encore Computer
Date: 17 Apr 92 13:03:56

In article <1992Apr16.231132.11981@news.iastate.edu> xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:

>OH JOHN. 

	PARDON ME, BUT WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING? DID YOUR CAPS LOCK KEY GET STUCK?
I hate it when that happens.

>MY USE UF AN INHALER DOESNT KILL ANY GERMS. 

	Ah, but by keeping you alive, it's preventing the development of all
of those bacteria that would otherwise feed on your rotting corpse.

>BUT GEE MAYBE ALL OF 
>HUMANITY SHOULD STOP EATING AND DIE. THAT WOULD END THIS PROBLEM ONCE AND FOR
>ALL. BESIDES WITH OUT HUMANS THE WORLD WOULD BE BETER OF AS IT COULD HEAL
>ITS SELF. 

	Maybe we should. If you truly value any form of life, then it's the
only way to be truly non-hypocritical. Right?

>BESIDES YOU SEEMED TO MIS THE ENTIRER POUNT OF MUY POST. I NEVER
>SAID THAT I WAS PRO-LIFE, IF YOU HAD READ MY POST CARFULLY AND WITH A SEMI-
>OPEN MIND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE REALIZED THAT THE PRO THAT I AM IS PRO-NATURE
>AND PRO-NATURS WAYS. 

	Oh, well then, it's all right. Sorry for jumping to conclusions.

>HERE LET ME ELABERAT. LAW1;SEVRVIVAL: KILLING TO SERVIVE
>THAT IS HOW THING HAVE ALLWAYS WORKED AND ALL WILL. LIFE HAS EVOLVED TO THIS
>PROCESE-THOUSE AT THE BOTOM OF THE FOOD CHAIN PRODUCE MORE YOUNG, THOSE WHO
>HAVE NO PREDITERS OR COMPITITION CONTROLE THERE OWN POULATIONS. THE ONLY 
>THAT I AM AGENST IS KILLING SOMETHING-ANY THING FOR A PERSONS CONVENINCE OF 
>BECAUSE IS WILL BOTHERE THERE SOCHIAL LIFE FOR A FEW MONTHS. ALL UTHERE 
>NATURAL LAWS COME FROM THE FIRST. NO I AM NOT IN ANY WAY ASOCEATED WITH
>greenpeace. 

	So, you are not opposed to abortions done to save the life of the
mother? I'll assume that's true, since it sounds like a reasonable extension
of your beliefs.

	How about cases of rape? If a woman becomes pregnant, it's much more
than a "social inconvenience". It can be psychologically devastating to be
reminded, every day for nine months, of one act of violence. Do you believe 
that a woman would be justified to preserve her mental as well as physical 
health?

	What about cases where a pregnancy would be financially devastating?
The delivery of a child can come to many thousands of dollars. Many people
simply can not afford proper care on their own. If a woman wants an abortion
because she can't afford proper prenatal care, endangering both the child
and herself, is she justified?

	What about cases where a pregnancy would interfere with more than
just the social life? A woman gets pregnant while in college. She has 
difficulty getting out of bed each day, let alone getting up to sit on a
hard wooden chair listening to lectures. A single woman get pregnant. She
works in a low-benefit job. She can't work during the last two months of her
pregnancy, and since she wasn't officially a full-time employee, she gets
laid off. Do you think that a woman would be justified in aborting a 
pregnancy to avoid either of those situations?

	And since you're concerned about survival, what about permanent
damage to the mother? *Every* pregnancy, every single one, has adverse 
effects upon the mother. Do you think that a woman has the right to
abort an unplanned pregnancy to avoid those effects? They will incur
risks to survival.

>ELF-KIN	ACTS OF INJUSTICE DONE BETWEEN THE SETING AND RISING SUN IN
>  HISTORY LAY LIKE BONES EACH ONE

	Look, I'm sorry for making fun of you before. It's just that I've
heard those "it's a life" arguments so many times before, from people who
refuse to specify exactly what it is about that life that makes it special.
If you truly hold to what you said above, that's good. It makes a much more
coherent argument than "It's a human life, and therefore sacred". But
I believe that abortions are done less for convenience than you would think.
Either that, or you have a much stricter definition of what convenience
is than I do.

John