Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site grkermit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!larry
From: larry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re: CHOICE and the Senate
Message-ID: <494@grkermit.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 11-Jul-83 12:13:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: grkermit.494
Posted: Mon Jul 11 12:13:37 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Jul-83 03:54:51 EDT
References: <1120@rti.UUCP>
Organization: GenRad Inc., Concord, MA
Lines: 35

From: rcp@rti.UUCP
;;;	We should all have legal control over our own bodies subject to
;;;	the limitation that we do not violate others rights.  Is the
;;;	mothers right to avoid the discomfort of pregnancy more important
;;;	than the childs right to live?  Remember that in most cases the
;;;	mother has the option of birth control if she wishes to avoid
;;;	pregnancy.


Fine, if the mother does not want to take care of her fetus, remove it
from her care and make it a ward of the state.  Of course that can't happen
can it?  You can remove a fetus from a womb and make it a ward of the
state because it is not a human being, and cannot survive outside of the
womb.

No law in this country requires ANYBODY to keep anybody else alive.  All it
says is that if a person normally responsible for keeping someone alive
renegs on that responiblity, they lose both the responibility and the 
priveleges associated with it.  Thus, if a mother no longer wishes to care
for the fetus, she loses the privelege and responibility to care for it.
But until they figure out a way for someone else to care for it, abortion
is the only solution.

Finally, 
	Unless you would allow abortions in case of uncontrolable pregnancy, 
then what is the point of your last sentence.  And if you would than
your murder argument is wrong.
-- 
Larry Kolodney #13 (I try harder)
(USENET)
decvax!genrad!grkermit!larry
allegra!linus!genrad!grkermit!larry
harpo!eagle!mit-vax!grkermit!larry

(ARPA)  rms.g.lkk@mit-ai