Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watdaisy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!drraymond
From: drraymond@watdaisy.UUCP (Darrell Raymond)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: It's very simple (for Alan Silverstein)
Message-ID: <6525@watdaisy.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Mar-84 19:13:07 EST
Article-I.D.: watdaisy.6525
Posted: Tue Mar 13 19:13:07 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Mar-84 07:32:01 EST
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 30

Please respond to this FAST.  I want to send
this message off to the net if you think it's
not too vicious. It's about Alan Silverstein's
abortion nonsense.


Alan, I have a number of questions that I WON'T ask.

(1)  Where did you get all these "rights" that we are "taking away"?
(2)  What about this issue suspends our right to legislate on it?
(3)  Why can we conclude that a fetus should be accorded lower
     status than a "living person"?
(4)  Why is anyone that disagrees with you either a "dreamer" or
     just "ignorant"?

The question I DO want to ask is: 

(5)  If the right to an abortion is as obvious
     and fundamental as you seem to claim it is, 
     what gives us the right to refuse one if
     there is a perfect (infallible) means of contraception?

I suspect your "rights" to an abortion "until" there are
better means of contraception are merely illsory.  If such
"rights" do indeed exist, they would not cease to be "rights"
because better methods of birth control were invented.  
"Perfect" birth control could at most be preferable to abortions
in your system.

Actually, castration is pretty infallible.