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