Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mit-vax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!mit-vax!csdf From: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: freedom/responsibility Message-ID: <358@mit-vax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 03:33:46 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-vax.358 Posted: Fri Jul 12 03:33:46 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 16-Jul-85 02:06:47 EDT References: <387@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> Reply-To: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 24 In article (Thomas Newton) writes: >In most pregnancies, it's not a matter of choosing the life of the woman >or the life of the baby. In the cases where the pregnancy places the life >of the woman in immediate danger, most pro-lifers seem to agree that it is >OK to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother. Wow, you must know some pretty liberal pro-lifers. Maybe they should meet the ones I know. >Have you ever heard of the concept of self-defense? It is OK to kill someone >if it is necessary to stop them from killing you or some other innocent person Not everyone who dies in a war were going to kill somebody. Were the citizens of Hiroshima or Dresden about to kill somebody? Certainly, we had to win WWII, but you make it sound like every enemy casualty was some kind of monster. More on this subject in later flame... -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep