From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging 
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 00:59:33 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>I don't see how compassion = allowing women to kill their fellow humans
>in them.  Perhaps my tone is a bit confusing, but it would be better if 
>no abortions were done in the first place legal or illegal.  That way,
>not only do the mothers avoid the possible complications of abortion,
>the unborn sons and daughters REMAIN alive.  Why have two victims when
>you can have two victors?

Yes, it would be better if no abortions were ever needed, wanted, or
performed.  Are you naive enough to believe that making abortion
illegal is going to accomplish any of this?

Here's two scenarios:
1) Woman gets pregnant.
2) Rather than drop out of school, or tell her abusive parents, or
    lose her job, she decides to get an abortion.
2a) Abortion is illegal: she tries doing herself, gets an infection,
    and dies alone in her apartment.
    Net: two dead, maybe more as she won't be having any future
    children.
2b) Abortion is legal: she goes to a clinic and has it done safely.
    Net: one dead, maybe one alive if she later gets married and has
    two (healthy & successful) children

>Abortion, legal or illegal, kills the unborn child within them as its main
>objective.  Women may die in the process, but this does happen when abortion
>is illegal OR legal.  Women can die as a result of legalized abortion too.

Abortion terminates pregnancy as its main objective; killing the fetus
is a secondary effect.  One that is also unavoidable in most
abortions.  And, in case you weren't aware, pregnancy and birth kills
women too.  Odds of dying as a result of pregnancy/birth are roughly
ten times higher than the odds of dying as a result of an abortion.

>Again, I ask, why make two losers when you can get two winners instead?

You presume, without adequate evidence, that the situation is even
close to being this simple.  This statement is excessively naive.

>>When you start showing some caring for people instead of your ideas
>>then maybe I'll start to care what your opinions are.  Until then I
>>suggest a stroll through parts of Oakland might be appropriate as a
>>lesson in what people have to live with on a daily basis.  You can
>>tell the signle mothers there that they would be happier supporting 
>>ten kids on welfare instead of three.
>>
>Even if they had their ten kids, I'm sure they would still see to their
>protection with all their heart and soul.  Also remember that humans

Crap.  Shows just how little you know.  I'd like to see what kind of
parent you'd be if you had 10 kids to take care of, without help, and
on $800 a month.

>are resources too.  I'm not sure how familiar you are with big families
>but there is a lot of helping going on with each other.  Older siblings
>taking care of younger siblings.  Younger siblings making sure others are
>okay.  Older siblings taking care of their parents and doing their best
>to help out.  

That's nice if there are two parents and a regular income.  As
Bush/Quayle found out, that ain't often the case.

>The alternative, of course, is to have dead children instead sanctioned
>by the abortion laws.

You should look up infant mortality rates for cities with large
populations of poor people like Oakland.  Also look up the number of
kids killed for other reasons.  I suspect you'll be shocked.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche