From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:30:46 GMT

hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:


>In a previous article, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu wrote:
>>hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>In a previous article, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu wrote:
>>>>jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:

>>>>An unborn baby has undertaken no conscious action of any kind, nor with
>>>>any malice, to threaten any member of society.  Thus, without due process,
>>>>it is your contention that this baby be found guilty of nothing and 
>>>>sentenced to death for it.

>>>Fetuses do pose a threat to members of society - the women that they are 
>>>living inside of.  Every pregnant woman faces a risk of death that is greater 
>>>than 0.00.

>>So do people driving cars.  The issue is whether someone has demonstrated
>>through an ACTION they have willingly undertaken that they are a LARGE
>>threat.  This is a very weak argument you present here.

>If you feel that the risk involved with driving is too great, you have a right 
>to stop driving.  If a woman feels that her pregnancy is posing to great a 
>risk to her life, she has a right to have an abortion and stop being pregnant.

Do you think any of this stuff through before you post it?  I do NOT have
the right to FORCE YOU to stop driving.  YOU might run me over when I'm walking
down the street.  YOU might slam your care into my kitchen when I'm eating
dinner.  YOU might kill my mother.  Hacking a baby into pieces amounts to the
same thing.  The baby has not chosen A. to be conceived .. or B. to be
murdered.  Your forcing that baby to DIE means you have enforced your will
upon it (much the same as my forcing you not to drive).

Why do you insist on punishing the innocent for the crimes of the uncaring
or irresponsible?  Wouldn't this be the same if I suddenly decided that
you are an undue burden to your mother, or to society, and brutally cut
you apart?  I'll answer my own question.. yes.


>>>>The resistance you hear from "us" concerning social programs is not
>>>>a result of our lack of respect or concern for human life, rather it is
>>>>from the opposite, our concern for human life.  Creating a welfare state
>>>>inhibits people's belief in themselves, promotes and reinforces their
>>>>feelings of helplessness rather than encouraging the desire to change their
>>>>situation by themselves, and punishes those who have accepted the 
>>>>responsibility for their own destiny (ie. people who work).

>>>Really, those poor, homeless, and hungry children should just take 
>>>responsibility for their lives and find a job.  Funding programs such as 
>>>WIC will just encourage infants and children to be lazy bums.

>>Those poor, homeless and hungry children should have had parents responsible
>>enough to realize they couldn't afford to feed children.  If they could
>>have controlled their hormones there wouldn't be a problem.  

>It sounds like you are blaming poor, homeless and hungry children for being 
>born to parents who's sex lives you don't approve of.  They should have had 
>responsible parents?  I don't think they had much say in the matter.  This 
>is really bizzare.

>>You tell me which
>>is the worse crime, society refusing to pay deadbeats or deadbeats knowingly
>>bringing children into the world whom they cannot feed.  Would any decent
>>person bring children into this world to watch them starve?  I think not.

>Whether or not these people are "decent", the fact remains that there are 
>millions of poor, homeless, and hungry children in the world.  They exist.  
>What do you suggest we do about them?

>>And yes, wasteful social programs WILL encourage children to be bums because
>>they learn by the example of their parents.

>>Only an idiot would hold children responsible for the stupidity and 
>>cruelty of their parents.  If programs that help these children could be
>>enacted that would truly be uncorruptable and beneficial to them, they would
>>be warranted.

>Such as?

Limited term welfare in which the participants must demonstrate a willingness
while they are sitting on their butts at home to get an education.  Full
scholarships based on need are a dime a dozen.  If you are sitting at home,
watching your color TV and collecting my tax money, I have a right to expect
you to take all your free time and make something of yourself.  If you
refuse and instead insist on being a parasite, we cut off your money, take
your children from you, and let you fend for yourself.  

>>>>This is not meant to imply that certain situations don't exist where some
>>>>assistance is warranted, but rather that many more exist that would be
>>>>better solved by encouraging self-dependence rather than state-dependence.
>> 
>>>But when it comes to abortion, you would rather have the state take charge 
>>>than let the pregnant woman make her own decision about her life and her body?
>> 
>>Abortion is murder.  It's not a question of just the mother's life, but also
>>the baby's.  The laws of this country already state that murder is wrong so
>>in fact the state already has control over this issue.  The only problem is
>>in making people aware of what abortion really is... cold blooded, vicious,
>>violent, painful MURDER.  

>You may think abortion is murder, but the laws of the U.S. do not.  Abortion 
>happens to be perfectly legal.  But just out of curiousity, what kind of 
>punishment do you think women who have abortions should recieve?

Abortion is murder.  The AMA believed this for over a hundred years before
they were taken over by you liberals.  I suppose this isn't that hard to
understand because charging a woman for pregnancy used to be more profitiable,
but now murdering those babies pays alot more.  Don't ever kid yourself,
we live in a capitalist society, and money creates morality.  How do the
liberals try and get special rights for gays in Colorado?  They boycott
the whole state (even those who voted for the legislation) to hurt them
FINANCIALLY.  Money rules most professions.  You women who are supporting
your right to kill babies (your right to CHOOSE), are in fact supporting
a profession whose only goal is to get rich by exploiting you.    

Sodomy is illegal in many states, whats your point?  Not every law that
exists is based on decent moral standards.  As far as I'm concerned what
people do in their bedroom is their business, but your contention is that
I am wrong because the law proscribes such activities.  If your dog wanders
onto my property, it's perfectly legal for me to kill it and eat it.  Is
this morally right?  You tell me.

I don't think women who have abortions should receive any punishment at all
other than counseling.  Women who have abortions are not malicious killers,
they are simply women in a difficult situation seeking the easy way out.
They need to be convinced that what they have done, or are trying to do, is
in fact the murder of an innocent life.  Only a callous jerk would propose
we imprison them for being scared and frightened.  

The doctors who perform abortions are murderers. Abortionists should be hung.
Talk about being a mass murderer, John Wayne Gacy can't even come close to
these sick bastards.  

>>This isn't the forum to discuss abortion.  If you would like to argue it go
>>to talk.abortion. 

>I'm reading it on talk.abortion.  Where are you?

Actually, I was on another one... don't know how it got mixed up.  Sorry
for the confusion.

>>Edward Simmonds

>				.... Heather. 

Edward Simmonds- opinions are my own and are perfectly correct 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion