From: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (LYNN ALFORD)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: J Price consistently refuses to answer the question
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:38:51 GMT
Reply-To: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Organization: Florida State University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <1992Nov9.165434.20916@ncsu.edu>, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes...
> 
>In article <19242.2afd6c4e@levels.unisa.edu.au>, 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon) writes:
>(all previous arguments deleted to save space and actualy answer a question)
>|>In article <1992Nov3.210902.3556@ncsu.edu>,
>|>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
> 
>|>So, it's OK to kill unwanted puppies but not unwanted fetus's just
>|>because a dog isn't a human? Are you implying that humans are in some
>|>absolute way that humans are superior to all other animals?

>I don't think it is OK to kill any animal (insects excluded) but one thing I 
>have noticed is that talking to someone and you talk to them about getting
>a little puppy put to sleep will elicit more of an emotional response then
>talking about abortion. Is a puppy any more important than a baby.

Not that this is in any way truly related to abortion, but do you think 
this is the excuse so many people use when they just abandon their cat or 
dog by the roadside?  That it is too cruel to put them to sleep?  In which 
case, they are ignoring entirely the fact that they are most likely 
exchanging a quick painless death for one of slow starvation.  Or perhaps 
the animal does learn to hunt, creating even more havoc among the native 
wildlife whch is having a difficult time because of loss of habitat.

By the way, who is killing babies?  Abortion removes a fetus, which may be 
alive, but isn't the same as a baby.

>|>Time and time again you do not answer the question:
>|>
>|>A woman has taken EVERY precaution she can, condom, spermicide, pill,
>|>the works. She has indicated from the very start that she does NOT
>|>want that pregnancy. By some cruel twist of fate, she gets pregnant.
>|>
>|>Should she or should she not get an abortion?
>|>
>She should not! She indicated from the very start that she knows sex can
>result in a pregnancy and that she has thought of this. She should have
>thought about that small case in which she did get pregnant. She should be
>prepared to deal with the child.

Ok, Jeff, let's get down to cases.  I had a friend who is married.  She was 
on the Pill, because she didn't want to be pregnant.  Now you say that if 
this married woman, had sex with her husband, then she must bring any 
pregnancy to term?

Well, there is a small problem in this case.  This person is trying to 
avoid children for good reason.  She was on several medications for major 
allergies and for chronic depression.  Now, before getting pregnant, she 
should be off these drugs for a couple of months, to avoid any potential 
fetal damage (read possible minor to major birth defects.)  If she did get 
pregnant due to birth control failure, she was going to have an abortion, 
because it was very unlikely that she would have a healthy baby.

Now, would you force this woman to continue an unplanned pregnancy?  
Knowing that it was very likely that any baby would have some sort of birth 
defect due to medication the mother was taking?

(note, this example is in present and past tense because I haven't spoken 
to this person in some time.  Things in past tense may have changed by 
now.)

>|>Answer the question: What if she is forced to change her mind because
>|>of reasons not under her control?
>|>
>Have the baby because she purposely brought it into the world

People using birth control are *not* purposely bringing any offspring into 
the world.  They are trying to avoid offspring.  Why force them to have 
children they aren't prepared for?

Lynn
  _____      The Darwin fish
\/    o\
/\_____/
  bb bb
I had an opinion just a moment ago.  Now where did I put it?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion