Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!saquigley From: saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: open letter to pro-lifers Message-ID: <7328@watmath.UUCP> Date: Wed, 21-Mar-84 20:14:30 EST Article-I.D.: watmath.7328 Posted: Wed Mar 21 20:14:30 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 22-Mar-84 02:13:13 EST References: <7257@watmath.UUCP>, <19306@wivax.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 22 I was mainly replying to the argument: "abortion will cause all sorts of atrocities to happen" by saying that these atrocities do happen anyway, so if it is these atrocities that people want to avoid by making abortion illegal, they are off the mark and should probably concentrate their efforts on the already existing atrocities. I next replied to the "abortion will desensitise us to the value of life" argument by pointing out that this desensitisation does occur much earlier and is learned on animals rather than on fetuses. I was just trying to point out that the arguments saying that abortion will be the source of all evil are off the mark and people who are worried about evil or its source should probably concentrate their efforts on the source or on the existing evil. Now abortion can be considered evil in itself without looking at the alleged "consequences". If people are against abortion in itself because it is evil and not because it will "cause" more evil then I was merely pointing out that it might be a better idea for them to work on reducing the need for abortion rather than outlaw it. Does that make more sense? Sophie Quigley ...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigley