From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: COERCED ABORTION [Can you help me polish this up?]
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 18:07:27 GMT

<1992Jul24.002839.20051@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) said:
><1992Jul23.162158.9339@ncar.ucar.edu> ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:
>><1992Jul23.070322.19014@cc.uow.edu.au>, nyikos@cc.uow.edu.au (peter nyikos) writes:
>>Fine.  So abortion should be made illegal since some women are coerced
>>into having abortions.
>>
>>I take it you think that, since some women are raped, the solution to
>>this is to make all sex illegal, both consensual sex and rape?

...

>You missed a tiny facet, Ilana: the reason pro-lifers seek to ban
>abortion is because abortion _always_ has a victim. Whether or not the
>woman is sad or glad in the future about it, the fetus (human fetus,
>member of the human species just like everyone else) is a victim and
>always ends up dying as a result. 

Funny, but we always end up with someone bringing up the case where a
fetus survived the abortion process and now is horribly impaired.  Doesn't
sound like "always" to me.

Besides, I doubt if many people would consider a fetus to be "just like
everyone else".  At least some of us are insulted by a comparison to a
tiny glob of cells.  However, I realize that for some people this
comparison makes them look good.

>Precisely because the z/e/f dies, we are aiming to pass a Human Life
>Amendment which will grant them their right to live (which was a right
>of theirs since science first knew of their existence, in the
>1860's-1870's).  

Wow!  Science didn't discover embryos until 1860!  Film at eleven!

>There's nothing wrong with sex, by the way: it's the issue of
>_KILLING_ for sex, that can be made illegal on a logically justifiable
>basis. 

Who kills for sex?  Can you support this accusation?  (what am I saying!?
of course he can't).

>Abortion is one of those _killing for sex_ situations. Or, maybe,
>killing _because_ of sex?  

You need to clarify this even more.

>By the way, Ilana, what would you do if your 16 year old daughter were
>sleeping with a 24 year old man? Would you oppose it? Ask this of
>fellow workers, or in your case (especially if DoD means Department of
>Defense), your fellow officers. 
>
>Nowadays, especially in Florida, pro-choice means it's perfectly okay
>to do that... 

Amazing!  I wonder if Mr Chaney even realizes that throughout recorded
history many rulers (both men and women) were well under our age of
consent.  These rulers were required to reproduce quickly to provide
heirs to the throne.  They were expected to rule a country, but Mr
Chaney wouldn't have allowed them to have sex.  Why isn't Mr Chaney
also aghast at the thought of an ages old god having sex with a 14-16
year old virgin?

BTW, when I was 17 I had a 16 year old girlfriend.  We had sex.  When I
turned 18, we still had sex.  Other than the letter of the law, what
special crime did I commit in having sex with her one day after I turned
18 than when I was still 17?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.