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